Prelates thenâ— more honored M. Calvin and his judgment then many of them and of our Clergie doe now who make it a cheife part of their superstitioâ— zeale to revile and traduce him both in their writings and Sermons all they may without any just or lawfull cause adorning Bellarmine Baronius and the Popish Schoolemen with the most magnifying Honorable Tules they can invent to vilefy him the more and humor the Catholike faction And that this is but forgery will appeare not by the forementioned Letter of King Edward and his Counsell to Bishop Ridly That the Altars in most part of the Churches of the Realme were already taken downe not to please M. Calvin but upon GOOD AND GODLY CONSIDERATIONS so no doubt the name of Altar exploded out of the Common prayer Booke and Homilies upon the selfe same good and godly Considerations but likewise by the 1. and 3. Parts of the excellent Homily against the Perill of Idolatrie wherein Altars are expresly condemned as heathenish Idolatrous and Popish the Homily also shewing at large that Godly Kings in all ages brake them downe and Idolatrous Princes and people only set them up contrary to Gods commaund who threatens to punish and destroy the people that so sett up or suffer Altars Images and Idolls undestroyed and to breake downe and destroy their Altars and Images recording That all Christians in the primitive Church as Origen against Celsus Cypriam also and Arnobius testify were fore charged and complained on by the Gentiles that they had no Altars nor Images From whence it is evident that they tooke them to be unlawfull in the Church or Temple of God and therfore had none whence the second part of the Hom. of the Time and place of Prayer calls the Images and Altars of Christians in those and our dayes HEATHENISH JEWISH ABUSES which provoke the displeasure and indignation of Almighty God and prophane and defile their Churches and grosly abuse yea filthily defile the Lords holy Supper with infinite toyes and trifles of mens owne popish devises to make a goodly shew and to deface the plaine simple syncere Religion of Christ Jesus yet our Prelates against these Homilies and the Communion Booke which they subscribe to and force others likewise to subscribe unto yea contrary to their Oath and solemne profession when they were ordained Ministers and consecrated Bishops set themselves now tooth and nayle to turne Communion Tables into Altars terme them by this name both in their visitation Articles Sermons and printed Bookes as the Papists and Popish Prelates did in Queen Maryes dayes who upon the change of Religion setting up of Popery made this their first worke to remove Communion Tables to erect Altars every where without which they could have no Masses nor Masse-Preists and to preach against 〈◊〉 scosse at Communion Tables and extoll Altars as our Prelates and their Popish instruments now doe whose Practises ends too no doubt are the same with these in former times which I shall take a little Liberty to relate both to informe the Reader lay open that Mystery of iniquity now intended by turning of our Lords Tables into Altars M. Fox our learned Ecclesiasticall Historian who not only writes the History of Queen Maries dayes but lived in those times records that in the first yeare of Queen Marye as soone as she came to the Crowne and before any Law made for that purpose many men just as too many Bishops Ministers are now were to forward in erecting of Altars and Masses the inseperable companions of them in Churches That D. Weston preâ—ching at Paules Crosse the 20. of October the same yeare to wt 1553. named the Lords Table an Oister-borde to which M. Fox addeth this marginall Note The blasphemous mouth of D. Weston calling the Lords Table an Oister-board That the Archdeacons Officiall visiting at Hynton the 28. of November following gave in charge to present all such as did disturbe the Queenes proceedings in letting the setting up of their Altars and saying of Masse or any part thereof The 24. of October the same yeare one Act was made to punish such who should willingly or of purpose molest lett disturbe or otherwise trouble any Parson Vicar Parish Preist or Curate preparing saying singing ministring or celebrating the Masse or unlawfully contemptuously maliciously of their owne power or authority pull downe deface spoile or otherwise breake any Altar or Altars or any Crucifix or Crosse that then was or after that should be in any Church Câ—apple or Church-yard which was seconded by the Queenes Proclamation the 15. day of December following Upon the 2. of December 155â— Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Wincâ—ester and Lord Chaunsellour preached at Pauls Crosse before King Philip Cardinall Poole and other Peeres where in his Sermon he had this passage And let us now awake which so long have slept and in our sleep have done so much naughtines against the Sacraments of Christ denying the blessed Sacrament of the Altar and pulled downe the Altars March 30. 1555. Bishop Farrar was Articled against among other things for causing an Altar set up in the body of Carmarthen Church to be taken away and a Table to be sett up in the middle of the Church for celebration of the Communion On the 3. of December John Austen a violent Papist came to the Lords Table in M. Blinds Church at Adesham being Churchwarden and layd both his hands upon it saying who set this here againe it being taken downe the Sunday before He is a knave that set it here c. and if he say any service here againe I will lay the Table on his face in that rage he with other tooke up the Table and layd it on a chest in the Chancell and set the Tressels by it And the 26. of November following he sayd to M. B. and ye pulled downe the Altar will ye built it againe No quoth he except I be commaunded for I was commaunded to do that I did The next Sunday this Churchwarden had provided a Preist to say Masse for which he had gottâ—â—aâ— Altar October 1. 1555. in the last Examâ—nation of Bishop Ridley D. White Bishop of Lincolne raged this argument to Ridely out of Cyrill Altars are erected in Christs name in Britaine in farre Countries Ergo Christ is come But we may use the contrary of that reason Altars are plucked downe in Britaine Ergo Christ is not come Bishop Ridley smilng answered your Lordship is not Ignorant that this word Altare in Scripture signifieth as well the Altar whereupon the Jewes were wont to make their burnt Sacrifices as the Table of the Lords Supper Cyrillus mâ—aneth there by this word Altare not that the Jewish Altar but the Table of the Lord and by that saying Aultars are erected in Christs name Ergo Christ is come he meaneth that the Communion is
heaven neither doth he so much as once stile the Lords Table an Altar nor make mention of an Altar whereat the Sacrament was administred throughout his workes His authority therfore might well have been spared The next Father is Tertullian out of whom two passages are alleadged One out of his Booke de Poenitentia where he remembreth Geniculationem ad Aras Bowing and ducking to Altars now much in use But certainely Altars in that age had not obtained so much dignity as to be adored bowed to since the consecration of them came in long after in Pope Felix time as M. Thomas Becon writes out of Sabellicus and Pantaleon neither can it be proved that Christians in that age used to bow to Altars This authority therfore is suspicious to put it out of doubt Erasmus Rhenanus Junius M. Cooke prove it not to be Tertullians but some conterfeit thrust upon him the phrase being certainely none of his no nor some things mentioned therein so ancient as his age This counterfeit authority therfore will not stand the Coale in any stead The second passage is that in his Booke de Oratione c. 14. Nonne solemnior â—rit statio tuaâ—siâ—ad Atam Deisteris Here is standing only at the Altar mentioned not kneeling or bowing to or at it So that these two Authorities seeme to thwart one another at the first view To this I answer that though this Booke be generally conceived Tertullans yet I suspect that the additions after the end of the Lords prayer explained where in this passage is are none of his For I find this passage in them Sic die Paschae quo communis quasi publica jejunij religio est merito deponiemus of culum c. which intimates that Christians on Easter day did Keep a common publike Fast â—nd therfore refused to kisse one anotherâ— And it makes Easter day not to be Stationum dies a day of praying standing as the next words prove Now it is certaine that Tertullian in his Booke de Corona Militis writes that the Christians in his age thought it a great wickednes to fast or to pray kneeling on the Lords day being the joyfull day of Christs resurrection much more then to doe it upon Easter day and that the Christians did not fast but rejoyce in remembrance of Christs resurrection from Easter to whitsontide No Ecclesiasticall writer extant then making mention of any solemne fast or praying kneeling observed by Christians in that age on Easter day who thereon ever used to Feast and rejoyce applying that of the Psalmist to this day and Feast Psall 118. 24. This is the day which the Lord hath made we will rejoyce and be glad in it This passage makes me suspitious that the later part of this Booke is none of his Adde to this That Cyprian a great admirer of Tertullian whom he stiled his Minister makes no mention of this Booke or of Tertullian or of any Altar or Stations at the Altar or Kisse of peace or other such Customes Ceremonies in his Exposition or Commentary on the Lords Prayer which is probable he would have done had Tertullian writen any such Booke as this or had these Ceremonies or Altars been then in use they being both Countrymen flourishing successively in the same Church Moreover this Booke makes mention of Hermas Booke intitled the Pastor by way of approbation and gives an answer to an objection out of it when as in his Booke de Pudicitia he thus censures it as counterfeit Scriptura Pastoris ab omni Concilio Ecclesiarum etiam vestrarum inter Apocrypha falsa adultera judicatur as the Bookes now passing under his name are accounted Moreover in this very Booke of Tertullian in his Booke de Corona Militis so in S. Cyprian on the Lords Prayer the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is by both of them ioyntly stiled the Eucharist both of them interpret Give us this day our dayly bread of Christ who is our living and true bread which came downe from heaven whose body the Sacramentall bread is esteemed and on whom we dayly feed in the Sacrament and Eucharist Now both of them stiling the Sacrament the Eucharist and speaking not of any Sacrifice or Sacrament of the Altar but only of spirituall bread to be eaten of us neither of a Table we may doubt this passage to be none of his Beside this that famous Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria flourishing but 240. yeares after Christ very neare Tertullians time writes thus to Sixtus Bishop of Rome that an ancient Minister who was a Bishop long before him a plaine evidence that Ministers Bishops were then both one and so promiscuously stiled being present when some were baptised hearing the interrogatories and answers came weeping and wailing to him falling prostrate at his feet confessed and protested that the baptisme where with he was baptised of the heretickes was not true whereupon he desired to be rebaptized which he durst not doe but told him that the dayly Communion many times ministred might suffice him when he had been present at the LORDS-TABLE and had streched forth his hand to receive the holy food and had communicated and of a long time had been partaker of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ I durst not againe baptise him but bade him be of good cheare of a sure faith and boldly to approch unto the Communion of the Sincts But he for all this morunneth continually horror with draweth him from the LORDS-TABLE and being intreated hardly is persuaded to be present at the Ecclesiasticall prayers In which auncient undoubted Epistle to the Pope himselfe we have not mention at all of any Altar or Sacrament or Sacrifice of the Altar but twice together the name of the Lords Table also of a dayly Communion holy food ministring and partaking of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ c. Which being the proper genuine undoubted language of that age makes me doubt these passages of Tertullian to be forged or corrupted He as also Justine Martyr Clemens Alexandrinus oft times making mention of the Lords Supper the Eucharist bread and wine receiving the Eucharist at the hands of the Presidents or cheife Ministers and the Tables to but never of any Sacrament of the Altar nor of an Altar but only here Finally all the forequoted Fathers Authors expresly determine that the Christians and Fathers of the Primitive Church for above 250 yeares after Christ had no Temples Altars nor Images at all and that Altars were first brought in by Pope Sixtus the second about the yeare of our Lord 265. after Tertullians age This authority therfore of his all others cited in the Coale great part of D. Pocklingtons Sunday no Sabbath concerning the Antiquity of Churches Temples Altars and Bishops chaires among Christians with in 200. yeares after Christ must needs be fabulous
haue vnder the hands of an eyewitnes or two who with-hundreds more can make it good if need be vpon their Oathes THE MANNER OF ALTERING THE Communion Table of the Collegiate Church of WOLVERHAMPTON in the Countie of STAFFORD consecrating it for an Altar the 11. day of October Anno Domini 1635. VPON Satarday being the 10. of October 1635. Maister Edward Latham one of the Proctors of Leichfeild Surrogate of Woluerhampton accompanied with some 20. or 30. Persons men weomen and Chorasters came to the Towne many of the Inhabitants but cheifly the Clergie going to meet him The intent of his their coming was to performe the solemnity of Dedicating the Communion Table to be an Altar and of consecrating certeyne Altar Cloathes as they said to the glory of God The Table was made new for this purpose being about a yard an halfe in lenght exquisitely wrought and inlaid a fayre wall of waynscot being at the backe of it the rayle before it was made to open in the middle not at one side the middle where the Ministers tread being matted with a very fayre Matt. Vpon the Table was placed a faire Communion Booke couered with cloth of gold bossed with great silver Bosses together with a faire Cushion of Damaske with a Carpet of the same both party coulored of skie coulor purple the fringe of the Carpet being blew white On each side of the Table hangs two peices of white Callico betwixt them the 10 Commaundements written in a fayre Table with guilded Letters the foresaid Cushion standing just below it But on the North end where the Minister stands to consecrate in that peice of white Callico is represented at the top the picture of Angels with faces cloudes birdes fleying about the middle the picture of Peter on the Crosse at the bottome George on horsebacke treading on the Dragon leaues grasse with some trees being beneath all almost at the end of it In the other peice of white Callico on the West end is the same as on the North end only the picture in the middle differs being the picture of Paul with his sword in his hand all this being the curious worke of some needle woman Now the mysterie why the Pictures of Peter Paul George on horsebacke more other are in this worke is imagined because the Church is dedicated to the memorie of Peter and Paul it is vnder the Iurisdiction of Sant Georges Chappell at Windsor The next day being the Lords day assoone as the Preists for so they would be called to suite the better with their Altar came to the Church each of them made a Low Congie a peece at their very first entring in at the great Church dore and an other Congie a peece at the I le dore after that 3. Congies apeece towards the Altar before its dedication and so they went into the Chancell where a bason of water a towel was provided for the Preistes to wash in where was incense burnind which perfumed the whole Church then they returned backe making 3. Congies a peece went to service which was solemnely performed the Organs blowing great singing not heard of in this Church before which kinde of seruice lasted two howres at least Seruice being finished there was a Sermon Preached by one Maister Ieffery Arch-deacon of Salop in the County of Salop whom the Surragate brought with him His text was Iohn 10. 22. 23. And it was at Hierusalem the Feast of the Dedication it was winter Iesus walked in the Temple in Salomons Porch All his whole Sermon was to prove the truth of the Altar He had not one place of Canonicall Scripture as we remember but one place in all which was out of the Maccabees His Sermon lasted an hower After Sermon they went to the Dedication or rather as the Preacher stiled it Renouation of the Altar and in the Bell-house 4. of them putt on the rich broydered Copes and euery one of them had a Paper in his hand which they termed Censer so they went vp to the Altar reading as it went for they looked often on it As they went they made 3. Congies apeece when they came to the Altar they kneeled downe prayed ouer the cloth the other Consecrated things the Organs blowing all the while this solemnity lasted almost halfe an hower After all this was performed there was a Communion and one was appointed to stand with a Bason to receyve the offertory divers gaue mony it was thought it had been giuen to the poore but the man that held the Bason gaue it to the Surragate the somme gathered being reputed about 40. s he calling the Church-wardens gaue them as he said 10. s the remainder he told them he would bestow on other pious vses but the 10 d. being counted proved to want 6. of the just somme he said he had deliuered them None gaue the Communion but the 4. that had Copes This finished they washed their hands returned making 3. Congies apeece as before These Copes the siluer Basons were brought from Leich feild The Communion and Dedication ended they went to dinner in the Afternoone they come to Church againe where was a Sermon preached by one Maister Vsuall a Minister his text was in the 2. Sam 7. 2. And David said to Nathan the Prophet se now I dwell in an house of Cedar And the Arke of God abideth vnder Curtaines This Sermon did justify and magnify the Altar lasted more then an hower which being finished they went to prayer which was very solemnely performed the Organs blowing diuers Anthems Responds being sung at that time which done they departed from the Church to their lodging where they were very merry to grace this solemnity and Consecration of the Altar the Higher the next day being munday they of Leich-feld went out of Towne many of them very drunke defiling themselues with this swinish sinne like so many filthie brute beastes to make the Altar the more holy venerable and themselves more apt to nod Congie to it this maner of keeping this feast of Dedication a patterne for all the Country to Imitate Thus ended this late Dedication with which I here conclude my rude Discourse and Quench-Coale THE SECOND PART OF THE QVENNCH-COALE IN this part of my discoursel purpose by way of Corrullarie to pâ—opound some few Quaeres ip these our New Doctors Innouatâ—rs together with the reasons why I 〈◊〉 propose these doubts Questions to thâ—m The first Quaere is this What is the true finall end they ayme at in erecting Altars styling Communion Tables Altars placing them Altar-wise in christening themselves againe by the name of Preists not as it is vsed for a contract of the word Presbyter which signifieth properly an Elder or Minister of the Gosple but of
doctrine for these present times as the 34. Article tearmed the Homilies with which I shall close up this first quaere QVESTION II. The second Question I would propound to these Novelleâ—s is this That since they will now stile themselves and be called of others only Preists so Shelford tearmed himselfe 〈◊〉 the Title page of his unlearned Treatises and many others have done in late prinâ—ed Sermons Pamphlets what kind of Preists they are wherein their Preisthood consists If they say they are only spirituall Preists and have only a spiritual Preisthood â—oâ—â—ffer up the spirituall sacâ—ifices of prayer 〈◊〉 thanksgâ—uing almes righteousnesse broken and contrâ—â—â— hearts and their owne bodies soules to God that every Christian is as much a Preist even by Christs owne institution a themselves and hath the sâ—lfesame Preisthood that they 〈◊〉 Rev. 1. 6. 1. Pet. 2â— 5 â— Exoâ— 19. â—â— And so they doe all they can â—o ingrosse this Title as peculiar to themselvs which is common to every Christian. If they meane by Preists nothing 〈◊〉 Presâ—yters and intend no more by their name and Preisthood but only the Eldershippe Ministrie let them enjoy that Title and office in Peace I quarell not with them Only this I must informe themâ— That such Preists need neither Altar nor Sacrifice but 〈◊〉 expresly debarâ—ed from both by Gâ—d himselfe 1. Cor. 9. 13. 14. c. 10. 16. 17. 18. 21. Hebr. 7. 12. 13. 14. But if they meane by the word Preist 〈◊〉 or Sâ—cerdâ—â— a sacrificing Preist or a Preist waiting at or upon the Altar as it is cleare they doe both by their writings their prayers before their Sermont where they pray for the Preistâ—◠〈◊〉 serve waiâ— aâ— the Altarâ— their erecting and pleading for Altars and Commemorative Sacrifices at least 〈◊〉 evident 〈…〉 and shall then inquire of them what 〈◊〉 Sacrificing Preists they are and of what order their Preisthood is In Scripture I read only of 4 kinds of Preists and Preisthoods Preists Heb. c. 5. 7. 8. 9. 10. Levit. c. 1. vers 12. Exod. c. 28. 29. 30. after the order of Aaronâ— Preists after the order of Melchizedech 2 Kings 17. 32. 1 Kin c. 12. 31. 32. c. 13. 33. 2. Kin 10. 18 c. Preists of Baal and Preists of the high places or Idol Preists The two first of divine the two latter of Diabolicall institution Since which there hath sprung up of late in the Church another dâ—stinct generation of Preists commonly called by the name of Masse-Preists and those are both of Papall Diabolicall institution Other sorts of Sacrificing Preists then these I neither know nor read of The sole question then will be of which of those of 5 sorts of Preists our Novellers Altar-panons are If of the first sort that is directly abolished changed abrogated by our Saviour Heb. 7. 11. 12. c. 8. 6. to 13. cap. 9. 10. throughout Col. 2. 14. 15. 16. And those who crie downe the name and sanctification of the Lords day Sabbath as â—â—wish will not I hope tearâ—ne themselves in the order of Aarons Preists which is farre more Jewish Of which sort of Preists they cannot be vnlesse they are lawfully descended from the tribe of Leui Num. 3. 6 c. c. 16. 1 Iosh c. 13. v. 14. 33. Psal. 135. 10. Mal. 2. 4. 8. Hebr. 7. 5. If of the order of Mâ—chizedech that is peculiar only to our Saviour subsisting personally in him alone and incommunicable to any other as the Apostle directly resolves Hebr. 5. 9. 10. c. 6. â—â— c. 7. throughout â— â— 9. 10. As all authors interpret old and new writers acknowledge and among them Mr. David Dickson in his commentarie a short explanation on the Hebrewes 7. An 1634â— where he layes downe the conclusion fully warranted by the Apostles text 1. That to make any Preists in the new Testament by special office beside Christ is to rent the Preisthood of Christ and to make it imperfect like Aarons which for the same reason that it had many Preists was weake imperfect inferiour to Christs 2. That to make Preists by office in the New Testament to offer up any corporall sacrifice is to make Christs Preisthood seperable from his owne person which is against the nature of Christs Preisthood which can not pasâ—e from one to another Hebr. 7. 24. 3. That to make plurality of the Preists in Christs Preisthood Vicars or Substitutes or in any respect partaker of the office with him is to praesuppose that Christ is not able to doe that office alone but is either dead or weake that he cannot fulfill that office contrary to the text which saith Because he continueth for ever he hath an unchangable Preisthood or a Preisthood that cannot passe from one to another Hebr. 7. 24. 4. That whosoever communicateth Christs Preisthood with another besides his owne person maketh Christ not able alone to saue to the uttermost those that come unto God by him 5. That the Scripture knoweth no Preist but the Leviticall Preists of Aarons postâ—rity for the time of the Lawâ— Or else that one Preist that was made by oath in the time of the Gospell besides these the Apostle knoweth none neither were there any other in his time in the Church 6. That to have Preists now after the similitude of Preists under the Law were to renounce the difference which God hath made betwixt the Law and the Gospell 7. That to make a Preist in the Gospell who is not consecrated by an Oath to abide for evermore in the office but may be changed and another come iu his place is contrary to Evangelicall Preisthood 8. That to make Plurality of Preists in the Gospell is to alter the order of Melchizedech sworne with an Oath and to renounce the worke sett betwixt the Law and the Gospell 9. That to make a man Preist now is to marre the Sonne of Gods priviledge To whome the priviledge only belongeth 10. That to make a sinâ—ull and weake man Preist now is to weaken the Preisthood of the Gospell and make it like the Law 11. That as long as Christs consecration lasteth which endureth for ever none must medle with his Preistly office 12. That to adde unto it and to bring in as many Preists now as did serve in the Temple of old is to provoke God to adde as many plagues as are written in Gods booke upon themselves and their Preists also All which considered I hope these Novellers dare not say they are Preists after the order of Aaron much lesse of Mâ—lchizâ—dech which is peculiar to Christ alone Pâ—reists of Baal or Idol-Preists J presume they neither will nor dare stile themselves If therefore they be Preists of any order they are and can be no other but Sâ—minary or Masse-Preists and if they are such Preists in truth as their writing and practises declare them Then let them be gone
last clause of this Rubricke relates only to all the Preists and Deacons receiving with the Minister not to the Sacraments administration by the Minister for that ought to be every Sunday without intermission Thus was the Sacrament dayly administred in every Cathedrall and Collegiate Church anciently and in Queen Elizabeths dayes And so it ought by Law to be now And this was the reason why Second Service for the Communion was read every Sunday and Holy-day at the Lords Table in those Churches because they had a Communion on those dayes But now the Substance of the Communion is quite omitted and discontinued and not so much as looked after by our Bishoppes and Cathedrall men and the Ceremony to witâ— the use of reading second service at the Table now foâ—â—ooâ—h at the High Altar as they call it only retained and urged Which ought not to be read there by Law as I have manifested unlesse there be a Commnion and then only at 〈◊〉 Lords Table as the Rubricke in the Communion the Queens Injunctions and 28. Canon prescribe not at an Alta. Our Bishops therefore must now either pull downe their High Altars in their Cathedrall and Collegiate Churches and administer the Sacrament in them every Sunday and Holyday at the Table and the standing in the middest not 〈◊〉 Quire where all may heare not at the upper end where 〈◊〉 can â—eare what 's read as in Paules and other Cathedrals 〈◊〉 the Vergers by holding up their Verges are appointed to give notice to the Cheristers and others when to say AMEN 〈◊〉 that they heare not what is read as the Common Prayer-Booke injoynes them Or else give over their reading of the Second Service at their High Altars or Lords Tables situated Altarwise reading it only in their Pewes appointed for that purpose as they do in Parish Churches else they may be lawfully indicted fined and imprisoned for it as egregious violâ—ters of the statute of 1â— Eliz. c. 2. and of the Common Prayer that they seeme so much to stand upon QVESTION V. The 5 Question I shall propose is this What Law or Canon is there for the building of Churches and Chapples East and West or placing the Chancle or Quire at the East end of them Statute or Canon of our Church and State J know not any and for pract se it hath beene otherwise The Temple of Ierusalem and its Sanctuary flood otherwise And the Iewish Synagogues anciently and now were built round or in an Oual manner as was the Great Temple built by Helena and Constantine the great over the Sepulcher at Ierusalem The famous Church of Tyre built by Paulinus Bishop of that city was otherwise situated For the Sermon made in the prayse thereof which fully discribes it informes us That the great Porch of the Church was at the East part of it reaching very high EAST-WARDS unto the Sunne-beames and that there was a seperation with great distance betweene the Sanctuary or Temple it selfe and this Porch The Sanctuary therefore being a great distance from the Porch and the Porch standing thus Eastwâ—rds It is certaine that the Chancle or Quire of this Church stood either in the middest or West end of it not at the East in the middest whereof the same Sermon informes us the Altar stood The Coliars strange glosse to evade this direct aâ—thority p. 53. That this Altar stood along the Easterne Wall of this Chancle which may well be interpreted to be in the middle of the Chancle in reference to the North and South is a direct forgery contrary to the words of this Sermon which sayth thâ—â— the Porch stood Eastward and the Sanctuary a great distance from it in the middest of which the Altar stood So as it could not possibly stand along the East wall or end of the Church being so farre remote from and beyond the Porch which stood Eastward Since this time the Churches as I have else-where manifested have been diversly situated according to the conveniency of the place Some being round or Ouall Others square Others standing North and South as 〈◊〉 the Savoy Church with divers of the Kings owne Chapples And the Chapples of Sundrie Colledges Hospitals Noblemen and Gentlemen And if this be not sufficient the very late Popish Chapple at Somersett-house with the new Church in Court Garden which as it stands not now perfectly East and West so at first the Chancle of it stood towards the West part Which some Prelates without Law Canon and reason I know not upon what superstitious overweaning conceit commanded to be altered and transformed to the other end to the great expence of the builder the hindrance and deformity of that good worke which yet must not be used for a Church because not consecrated by a Bishops coâ—â—ring white Rochet Which consecration I have manifested to be against Law utterly exploded as a Romish Relique If then there be no Law or Canon for the building of Churches or Chapples East and West or placing the Chancle in the East end of Churches as is apparent there is not There cannot then be either Law or Canon for the placing or rayling 〈◊〉 of our Communion-Tables against the East wall of Church or Chancles Altarwise Being the end for which J moved the Question And as there is no Law for this situation of the Table or Chancle so as litle Antiquity For in Durantus his time one of the latest authorities Bishâ—p Iewel quotes who lived not above 400 yeares since the Altar stood in the middest of the Quire and not close against the wall as is evident not only by the words Bishop Iewell â—ites but by other passages By the Altar sayth he our heart is understood which is in the MIDDEST of the body ficut Altare in MEDIO ECCLESIAE as the Altar is in the MIDDEST of the Church Moreover he informes us that in consecrating the Altar the Bishop septies Altare CIRCVIT goeth ROUND ABOUT the Altar 7 times which he could not doe stood it Altarwise as now close to the Easterno wall to signify that â—e ought to take care for all and be vigilant for all which is signified by CIRCUITUM by his compassing or going round the Altar And if this be not sufficient out of Isiodor Amalarius Fortunatus Rabanus Maurus and others fore-cited he thus defines a Quire Chorus est multitudo exsacris collâ—cta dictus Chorus quód initio in modum CORONAE CIRCUMARAS starent ita psallerent Enough to Answer the Coliars idle euation of his authority This ancient definition of a Quire is since repeated and approved by Durantus Bartholomeus Gavantus and other late Popish writers Enough to prove that how ever Romish or English Altars have been lately situated against the East wall of the Quire yet ab initio non fuit sic it hath been but of late times so even as the Papists themselves confesse Hence our Learned Dr. â—ulke
revealed That Crucifixes and Images in Churches are Lawfull and necessary comly Ornaments That Christ is Really present upon Earth on the High-Altar and Communion-Table That Communion-Tables are Altars Ministers of the Gospell Priests serving at the Altar The Sacrament of the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar and may yea ought so to be phrased That men ought to bow to Altars and Communion-Tables and to place and Rayle them in Altar-wise at the East end of the Church and come up to them and receive when there is a Sacrament And that Ministers must read their Second Service at them when there is none That auricular Confession to a Priest and Absolution are very fitting and necessary points much insisted on and pressed at this present when Cleargie-mens sinnes are so open and notorious that they need no Confession but correction rather That the Lords-day is no Sabbath That it is Iewish to call or keep it as a Sabbath That it is not of divine but humane Institution nor within the morality of the fourth Commaundement That two howers only of it are to be sanctified nor the whole day That Morrises Dancing Sports and Pastimes yea labours of mens calling not specially prohibited by some humane Lawes even out of cases of necessity are Lawfull on it That men may fall totally and finally from Grace That they have free-will and may exactly fulfill the Law of God if they please themselves That men are justified by workes yea by charity and not by faith alone That men are Elected from the foresight of faith and workes and Reprobated only out of the foresight of their sinnes That there is an universall grace given to all men whereby they may be saved if they will That Christ died alike for all men wha soaver That preaching is an extraordinary thing necessary only for extraordinary times and belonging to none but extraordinary men That one Sermon in a Month is enough and better then two a day That reading is properly preaching That Arch-Bishops and Bishops Episcopall Iurisdiction and degree is above other Ministers Iure divino That the Ministers know more then the Lay-people the Bishops more then the Ministers the Arch-Bishops more then the Bishops And therefore what ever the Ministers shall teach or prescribe the people what ever the Bishops the Ministers and people what ever the Arch-Bishops the Bishops Ministers and people too are bound to believe and obey without further question or dispute That the Popes Lawes Decrees and Canon-Law are still in force and our Church ought to be governed by them and our Ecclesiasticall Courts proceed Legally according to them That Bishops have power to make and publish Articles Canons Injunctions Oathes Orders Rites Ceremonies in their owne names and rights and to enforce both Ministers and people to obey them That they may silence suspend and excommunicate yea deprive and imprison Ministers at their pleasure without any Legall cause That Bishops are not bound to preach so much or so oft as other men though they have greater wages and so should doe more worke That they may Lawfully and laudablie neglect their spirituall functions to mannage temporall Offices and affaires exercise both Swords at once and rule both Church and State together When I see out owne Divines if we may believe them by publike License in printed Bookes defending all these with sundrie other erronious Romish Positions maintaining all Popish Ceremonies conforming themselves to Popish Masse-Priests in their noddes cringes genuflections habits preaching writing Ceremonies And joyning thus with them in a most treacherous confederacie against the established Doctrine Discipline of the Church of England as many late Writers and by Name Bishop Mountague Bishop White Edmond Reene Dr. Pocklington Dr. Heylyn Dr. Primerose Dr. Laurence Dr. Read Mr. Shelford Mr. Chowne Mr. Studly with others in their late printed Bookes Bishop Wren and other our Prelates in their Visitation Articles and hundreds in their unprinted Sermons both in the Court City Uniuersitie and Country have done When I behold our Lords Tables euery where called and turned into Altars or rayled Altar-wise Our Ministers transformed into Priests and so stiled Our Religion Metamorphosed into externall Popish Pompe and Ceremonies Our Devotion into Superstition Our Holines into professed prophanesse Our godnes into impiory Our Preaching into Piping and Dauncing Our Lords dayes into Play-dayes Our Conscience into unconscioâ— ablenes Our feare of God into Atheisme Our Bishops for the most part into Bite-shrepes Our Ecclestasticall High Commisioners into Spanish Inquisitours and meere Tyrants Our Pastors into Wolves Our Religious Fasting even in this time of Plague and danger into Feasting Our devout Prayers into carnall lollity Our Profession of Religion into Derision and Gods Word yea Heaven and Hell into a Fable And that principally by meanes of some 〈◊〉 Authorized Bookes in print which no man can have free liberty to answer this being one grand Policy of our Popish Innovatours to ingrosse the power and commaund of all our printing Presses into their owne hands and to stay whatever may either detect or crosse their Antichristian Romish designes When I behold all this I say even with a bleeding heart and troubled spirit how can I but unloose my hitherto silent tongue and penne and cry out aloud that all may heare to these open Powder Traytours who would blow up our Religion and our Church at once O men doe not thus murther and destroy the Church of England Now because I cannot at once encounter all those who are guilty of this unnaturall Treachery nor crush all these viperous Cockatrices in the shell I have here single out some three or foure of them to combate with especially the Authour of A Coale from the Altar intiteled A Iudicious Learned Divine Whose Coale set on fire by Mr. Samuell Baker in the Bishops of Londons Open hath kindled a new Combustion every-where in our Church concerning Altars the Sacrament of the Altar the â—â—â—â—swing of the Communion Table an Altar and the placing of it Altar-wise with one side against the Wall as the East end of the Church VVhich they have earnestly pleaded for in late printed Bookes in open affront and defiance to our Statuâ—es Articles of Religion Booke of Common-Prayer Injunctions Canons Martyrs and most Eminent Writers Which particulars though they seeme small at first view and are slighted by many as matters of no great moment yet all Circumstances considered they are very important and the conniving at them without Opposition like to prove fatall to our Religion as the Reading of the Treatise itselfe will evidence more at large To make this apparant in few words There is no man almost so ignorant as not to know So blinde as not to see that there is a strong faction sprung up of late among us the heades whereof were particularly voted and descried in Parliament-House the last Parliament who labour with all diligence power and cunning artifice to bring the whole body of Popery
yea rather abound with more and more stupendious Conjurations then they But S. Augustine who in his time complained of the multitude of Ceremonies if he were now alive what would he thinke of that immense and prolix number of Ceremonie◠〈◊〉 in use For writing to Ianuarius he thus speakes of Ceremonies Notwithstanding he hath laden with servile burthens Religion itselfe which the mercy of God would have to be free with very few and most manifest Ceremonies of Celebration that the condition of the Iewes is now more tollerable then that of Christians Who although they acknowledge not the time of liberty yet they are Subject to the rudiments of the Law not to human presumptions or Instiâ—â—â—ons Thus Augustine And verify the condition of this our time is much to be deplored that the Fathers of the Church either will not or cannot with the same edge of their minde cut off these and such like Ceremonies or rather TRIFLES from the Church where with they discerned and corrected these former vices of Ordalium or triall by fire But those being damned and abolished as Superstitious they still hold fast and retaine these Consecrations QUAMVIS PUERILIA ET DELIRIA SINT although they are Childish things and Dotages framed and coâ—piled out of them How much more equall then moderne Papists was Pope Grâ—gorie who writes That the rules of the Holy Fathers were delivered according to the circumstances of time Place person and instant busines But these having no regard neither of time nor place noâ— busines nor person nor of any other thing but their owne will and vaine glory Nâ— pusillis in reâ—us 〈◊〉 ceâ—eâ—a voluâ—â— Will not submit to the truth even in these triviall things Thus this Arch-Bishop of these Dedications so much now contested for by his present Successoâ—r Ouâ— of what spirit he hath here determined to our hands I 〈◊〉 not recite 〈◊〉 A QUENCH-COALE OR A breife disquisition or Inquirie in what place of the Church the Communion Table ought to bee situated especially when the Sacrament is administred IT hath been a great Question lately raysed and much agitated among us by some Innovating Romish spirits In what place of the Church or Chancell the Lords Table ought to stand specially at the time of the Sacraments administration whether in the Body or midst of the Church Chancell or Quire or at the East end of the Quire Alterwise where some now rayle it in and plead it ought of right to stand The Rubricke in the Comon prayer booke before the Communion thus resolves this question The Table at the Communion tyme havinge a faire white Lynnen cloath upon it shall stand IN THE BODY OF THE CHURCH OR IN THE CHANCELL where morninge prayer and eveninge prayer bee appointed to be said And the preist standinge AT THE NORTH SIDE OF THE TABLE shall saye the Lords prayer with this Collect followinge c. Queene Elizabeths Injunctions published in the first yeare of her Raigne when the former Rubricke was made thus explaine and define this question The holy Table in every Church when the Communion of the Sacrament is to bee distributed shal be soe placed in good sort with in the Chancell as whereby the Minister maye bee more conveniently heard of the Communicants in his prayer and administration and the Communicants alsoe more conveniently and in more number communicate with the sayd Minister And after the Communion done from tyme to tyme the same holy Table to bee placed where it stood before Therefore it is not to be moveable not fixed or rayled in at the East end of the Chancell The Canons Anno 1603. Can. 82. thus second the Injunction Whereas wee have no doubt but that in all Churcheâ— with in the Realme of England convenient and decent Tables are provided and placed for the celebration of the holy Communion wee appoint that the same Tables shall from tyme to time bee kept and repaired inconvenient and decent manner and covered in time of divine service with a Carpett of silke or other decent stuffe and with a faire lynnen cloath at the time of the administration as becommeth that Table and soe stand savinge when the said holy Communion is to bee administred At which time the same shal bee placed in so good sort with in THE CHURCH OR CHANCELL as thereby the Minister maye bee the more conveniently heard of the Communicants in his prayer and administration and the Communicants alsoe more conveniently and in more number maye communicate with the sayd Minister Queene Elizabeths visitors in the first yeare of her Raigne whoe best knewe the meaninge of the Rubricke and Injunctions made that very yeare did by speciall direction place the Communion Tables throughout all Churches of England in the bodie of the Church or Chancell some distance from the wall with the two ends standinge East and West and the two sides North and South in which sort they have stood noe lesse then 73. yeares or more And in such Churches where the Tables coulde not conveniently stand alwayes in the body of the Church or Chancell they then placed them in some other convenient place where they might best stand givinge direction accordinge to the Rubricke and Queenes Injunctions for removinge them into the midst of the Church or Chancell when the Sacrament shoulde bee administred as the sayd Rubricke Injunctions and Canons prescribe In the yeare of the Lord 1533. there was a short and pithie treatise touchinge the Lords supper compiled as some gather by M. William Tyndall and printed at the end of his workes wherein p. 476. 477. hee wisheth that the holy Sacrament were restored unto the pure use as the Apostles used it in their time After which hee prescribes this forme of administringe it wishing that the secular Princes woulde commaund and establish it To witt That the breade and wyne shoulde bee sett before the people in the face of the Church upon the Lords Table not an Altar purely and honestly laide c. Then let the Preacher whom hee would have to preach at least twise every weeke exhort them lovingly to drawe neere unto this Table of the Lord c. This donne let him come downe to witt from the pulpit and accompanied honestly with other Ministers come forth readily unto the Lords Table not the Altar the congregation nowe SET ROUND ABOUT IT aud alsoe in their other convenient seates the Pastor exhortinge them all to praye for grace faith and love which all this Sacrament signifieth and putteth them in minde of Then let there bee read openly and distinctly the 6. chapter of John in their mother tongue c. Where this Author prescribes a Table not an Altar and that to stand in the face of the Congregation not at the upper end of the Quire that soe the Congregation might sit ROUND ABOUT IT thus receive This hee determines to bee accordinge to the pure use of the Sacrament in the Apostles time and that which our Martyrs then desired to bee
restored In the yeare of the Lord 1549. as M. John Fox in his Acts and Monuments London 1610. p. 1211. 1212. Records Kinge Edward the 6. with 9. of his Privy Councell whereof Archbishop Cramner and Thomas Bishop of Ely where two writt a letter to Nicholas Ridley Bishop of London to give substantiall Order throughout all his Dioces that with all diligence all the Altars in every Church and Chappell with in his Dioces bee taken downe and in steed of them a Table to bee sett up in some convenient part of the Chancell with in every such Church or Chappell to serve for the administration of the blessed Communion sendinge with this letter 6. reasons why the Lords board shoulde rather bee after the forme of a Table then of an Altar After with letter and Reasons received the Bishop appointed the forme of a Right Table to bee used in his Dioces and in the Church of Paules brake downe the wall standinge by the high Altars side placinge the Table a good distance from the wall M. Martin Bucer in his Censure of the Common prayer booke of the Church of England in his scripto Anglicano p. 457. writes That it appeares by the formes of the most auncient Temples and writings of the Fathers that the Clergie stood in the midst of the Temples which were for the most parte round And out of that place did soe administer the Sacraments to the people that they might plainely heare the things that were there recited and be understood of all that were present And hee there condemnes the placinge of the Quire soe remote from the bodie of the Church and administringe distinct service Sacraments therin as contrary to Christs Institution and an intolerable contumely to God exhortinge Kinge Edward and the Archbishop severely to Correct the same Shortly after which Censure of his the Altars were taken downe and Communion Tables placed in the bodie of the Church or Chancell in their steed * Bishop Farrar causinge a Communion Table for the administration of the Lords supper March 30. 1555. to bee sett up IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CHURCH of Carmarthen without the Quire takinge awaye the Altar thence The MIDDEST of the Church beinge then thought the fittest place for its situation Incomparable Bishop Jewell * one of Queene Elizabeths visitors in the first yeare of her Raigne whoe had a hand in turninge the Altars into Communion Tables and placinge these Tables in the middest of the Church or Chancell if not incomposinge the Rubricks in the Communion booke in his answeare to Hardings Preface writes thus An Altar wee have such as Christ and his Apostles and other Holy Fathers had which of the Greekes was called the Holy Table And of the Latines the Table of the Lord and was made not of Stone but of Timber and stood not at the end of the Quire BUT IN THE MIDDEST OF THE PEOPLE as many wayes it maye appeare And other or better Altar then Christ or these Holy Fathers had wee desire to have none And in his Reply to Hardinge Article 3. Divis. 26. Hee proceeds thus Nowe whether it maye seeme likely that the same Altars stood soe farr of from the hearinge of the people as M. Hardinge soe constantly affirmeth I referr my selfe to these authorities that here followe Eusebius thus describeth the forme and furniture of the Church in his tyme. The Church being ended comely furniture with high Thrones for the honour of the Rulers and wish stalles beneath sett in order And last of all the holie of holies I meane the Altar BEING PLACED IN THE MIDDEST Eusebius sayth not the Altar was sett at the end of the Quire but IN THE MIDDEST OF THE CHURCH AMONGE THE PEOPLE S. Augustinus likewise sayeth thus Christ feedeth us dayly and this is his Table here sett IN THE MIDDEST O my hearers what is the matter that yee see the Table and yet come not to the meate In the 5. Councill of Constantinople it is written thus When the Lessen or Chapter was readinge the people with silence drâ—ve togeather ROUND ABOUT THE ALTAR and gave care Yet D. Pocklington writes that they are much mistaken that produce the Councell of Constantinople to prove that Communion Tables stood in the midst of the Church and the Coale from the Altar sayth the like And to leave others Durandus examininge the cause why the Preist turneth himselfe about at the Altar yeildeth this reason for the same In the MIDDEST OF THE CHURCH I opened my mouth And Platina noteth that Bonifacius Bishop of Rome was the first that in the time of the ministration divided the Preist from the people To leave further Allegations that the Quire was then in the body of the Church divided with railes from the rest whereof it was called Cancell or Chancell c. And whereas M. Hardinge imagineth that the people for distance of place could not heare what the Preist sayd A man that hath considered the old Fathers with any diligence may soone see hee is farre deceived For Chrisostome sayth The deacon at the holy Misteries stood up and thus spake unto the people Oremus pariter omnes let us all praye together And againe hee sayth the Preist and people at the ministration talke togeather The Preist sayth the Lord bee with you the people answeareth And with thy spirit Justinian the Emperour commanded that the Preist should soe speake a lowde at the holy Ministration as the people might heare him And to leave rehearsall of others Bessarion sayth the Preist speakinge these words the people standinge by at each part of the Sacrament or on every side sayth Amen After which hee concludes thus Seeinge therefore that neither Altars were erected in the Apostles time nor the Communion Table that then was used stood soe farr off from the body of the Church nor the people gave ascent to that they understood not soe many untruthes beinge found in M. Hardings premises all which are revived afresh in the Coale from the Altar to affront Bishop Iewell and justifie M. Hardinge and that by publique license such is the desperate shamelessenes and Apostacie of our age wee maye well and safely stand in doubt of his Conclusion And in the margin hee hath this note annexed to M. Hardings words The. 82. un truth The Altars and Communion Tables STOOD IN THE MIDDEST OF THE CHVRCH as shall appeare And Article 13. division 6. p 362. hee cites the same passages of Eusebius Augustine and the Councell of Constantinople to prove that there was aunciently but one Altar and Communiâ—n Table in every Church and that standinge in the middest of the Church Quire people and concludes thus Soe likewise Gentianus Hernettus describinge the manner of the Greeke Church as it is used at this daye sayth thus In the Greeke Church there is but one Altar and the same standinge IN THE MIDDEST OF THE QVIRE and the Quire alsoe was in the
For sittinge standinge and incircling the throne or Table round about on every parte Therefore it shoulde by the same Reason bee soe taken here 3. When as wee saye the Kings Nobles doe inviron or stand round about his Throne this implies that his Throne stands not against a wall but soe as men maye stand round about him round about eâ—â—rimplyinge a perfect Circle though about doth not alwayes soe 4. I shall make it most cleere that all Altars aunciently were placed in the midst of Temples Churches or Quires and that it was the use both amonge Iewes Pagans and Christians to compasse stand dance goeround about them therefore it shal bee intended the people did soe there till the contrarie can bee proved which wil bee ad Graecas Calendas To that of S. Augustine hee replies that mensa ipsius in MEDIO constituta is not to be interpreted the Table set here in the midst as it is translated but the Table which is here before you accordinge to the usuall meaninge of the Latine phrase afferre in medium which is not to be construed thus bringe it precisely into the middest but bringe it to us or before us Oh wise evasion as if Bishop Jewell Bishop Babington Doctor Fulke the Epistoler were such illiterate novices that they knewe not howe to conster Latine and need bee sett to schoole againe to learne their Grammer I wonder why this pragmaticall Criticke cavelled not at our newe translaters for rendringe that of Math. 18. 20. where two or three gathered togeather there I am in medio corum in the middest of them where the same latine word is used If in medio heere may bee properly Englished in the middest not at the East end or before them why not in this text of Augustine All knowe that the proper signification of Medium is the midst and of in medium afferre to bringe into the midst not before men Coram nobis beinge the common phrase signifying to bringe a thinge before men not in medium afferre And if this Gentleman remember his Grammer Sentit medios illapsus in hostes cannot bee interpreted hee perceived hee was fallen before his Enemies but into the midst of them The translation of Bishop Jewell therefore is good proper the Colier a nonsence Criticke to quarrell with it upon such slender grounds To that of Durandns in medio Ecclesiae apperuios meum that it proves not that the Altar stood in the midst of the Church but that the Preists stood at the midst of the Altar For it is generally knowne that many hundred yeares before Durand was borne the Altars generally stood in Christian Churches even as nowe they doe I answeare first that to interpret in medio Ecclesiae the midst of the Altar not of the Church is nonsence as if the Altar were the Church or the midst of the Altar the midst of the Church yea though it stood not in the midst but East end of it 2. If in medio here by his owne confession signifie in the midst not before the Altar then why not in that place of Augustine too at which he formerly carped as mis-translated 3. It is not well knowne neither by experience for noe man is so auncient nor by any authenticke writer extant that many 100. yeares before Durand was borne the Altars generally stood in Christian Churches as now they doe there being not one testimony that can be produced to prove it The Altar in the Cathedrall Church of Rome standing even in time of Masse when the Pope receiveth the Sacrament in the middest of the Quire the Pope sitting in a Chair of estate about it as William Thomas an eywitnesse of it An. 1547. testifyeth in his History of Italie yet the contrary is well knowne shall God willing be proved if this were soe well knowne I wonder why this judicious learned man proves it no better begging only the Question disputed in stead of proving it having thus answeared these nonsense idle Cavills against the authorities quoted by learned Jewell I now proceed to other of our writers Doctor Gervase Babington Bishop of Worcester in his Comfortable notes upon Exod. chap. 20. and 27. p. 279. 307. in his workes in folio shewes at large That the Apostles and Primitive Christians had no Altare but Communionâ— Tables only and those made of boards REMOVEABLE SET IN THE MIDDEST OF THE PEOPLE AND NOT PLACED AGAINST A WALL they are his owne words Doctor William Fulke in his Confutation of the Remish Testament notes on Heb. 13. sect 6. Anno 1589. writes thus The Lords Table of the auncient Fathers is called indifferently a Table as it is indeede and an Altar as it is unproperly But that it is called of them a Table and was indeede a Table made of boards and removeable sett in the midst of the people not placed against a wall I have shewed sufficiently by the Testimony of the auncient Fathers before to witt those whom Bishop Jewell quotes So on the 1. Cor. 11. sect 1â— Hee M. Cartwright both affirme That in the Primitive Church the Lords Table was situated in THE MIDDEST OF THE CHURCH AND PEOPLE not against a wall Doctor Andrew Willet in his Synopsis Papismi the 9. generall Controversie Quest. 6. Error 53. p. 496. writes thus against the Papists concerninge the fashion forme of Churches the divisions partitions with in Wee will not much contend soe these conditions bee observed First that all superstition bee avoided in makinge one place of the Church holier then the rest wherein the Papists mightily offend For the Quire and Chancell was for their Preists singers the other parte of the Church for lay-men they were not to enter into that holy place And thus accordinge to the places they devided the Congregation as though one parte were more holie then the other But where learne they that Churches ought to have a Sanctuary as the Jewish Churches had That was an evident tipe and is nowe accomplished in our Saviour Christ whoe is nowe entred into the heavens as the high Preist then entred into the holie place to make attonoment for the people Heb. 9. 24. this therefore is very grosse to revive and renue againe Jewish tipes and figures as their owne Ordinarie glosse sayth The externall Rites Ceremonies of the Law because they were a shaddowe of Christ to come of his Mysteries Therefore the truth of the Gospell beinge come are made unlawfull vanished away Salomons Temple then with the Sanctuarie and Preisthood therefore which were shaddowes of things to come are no presidents or Patternes for Christians to followe But if here in not with standinge they will imitate the buildinge of Solomons Temple to have a Sanctuarie why doe they not alsoe build towards the West as the Temple was why bringe they not their ALTARS DOWNE TO THE BODY OF THE CHURCHES For in their holie place there was noe Altar And indeede Altar wee
acknowledge none as hereafter shall bee proved But wee see noe Reason why the Communion Table maye not bee sett IN THE BODY OF THE CHURCH as well as in the Chancell if the place bee more convenient and fitt to receive the Communicants But I praye you why the Altar rather sert in the Sanctuarie then the Font or Baptisterie They are both Sacraments as well Baptisme as the Lords supper why shoulde one bee preferred as holier then the other Thus this Doctor By all these authorities it is most apparent that by the expresse Resolution of the Common prayer booke confirmed by Act of Parliament Of Queene Elizabeths Injunctions the Bishops learned writers constant practice of the Church of England from the beginninge of Reformation untill now the Communion Table not to stand at the East end of the Chancell or Quire Altarwise against the wall especially when the Sacrament is administred but in the middest of the Church or Chancell and that soe it stood in the Primitive Church Nowe for the better discoverie of the place where the Table ought to stand it will not bee impertinent to enquire First where the Table of Shewbreade was placed 2. Where Iewish and heathenish Altars auncienly stood 3. How the Iewes Tables the Table at which Christ instituted the Sacrament were situated 4. How the Communion Tables were placed in the Primitive Church 5. What place is most proper Convenient for the Table 6. What reasons can bee produced for the placinge of the Communion Table Altarwise at the East end of the Chancell against the wall c. For the first of these it is most evident that the shewbreadâ— Table a tipe of Christ the Sacramentall breads stood not in the Sanctum Sanctorum but without the vaile of the Tabernacle on the Northside not at the East side of the Tabernacle Exod. 26. 35. Heb. 9. 2. 3. 6. 7. which are expresse compared with the 1. Kings 7. 28. 1. Chron. 9. 32. c. 23. 29. c. 28. 16. 2. Chron. 4. 19. c. 13. 11. c. 29. 18. If the situation then of the Shewbreade Table maye bee any president for Communion Tables they ought to be placed not in the East end of the Chancell but in the Northside of the body of the Church as the shewbread Tables stood For the second wee must knowe that Altars were aunciently seituated heretofore in groves upon hills elevated places especially amonge the Idolatrous Gentiles Jer. 11. 13. Exod. 34. 13. Numb 23. 1. and 28. 29. Deut. 7. 5. c. 12. 3. 2. Kings 11. 18. c. 21. 3. to c. 23. 12. whence they are frequently stiled in Scripture high places and condemned by that name 1. Kings 2. 3. 4. c. 1â— 31. 32. c. 14. 23. c. 15. 14. 2. Kings 12. 3. c. 14. 4. c. 15. 4. 35. c. 17. 29. 2. Chron. 17. 6. c. 32. 1. c. 33. 17. Jer. 42. 35. Ezech. 6. 3. c. 16. 16. 39. 25. In detestation of these high places in truth nought else but high-Altars God himselfe gave expresse charge to the Israliâ—es Exod. 20. 28. not to goe up by steps to his Altar that their nakednes bee not discovered And to plucke downe destroye all high places Numb 33. 52. 2. Chron. 17. 6. Ezech. 16. 39. yet the Popish Innovators are so sottish as even in dispite of God himselfe to erect high places high Altars to goe up by steps unto them in stead of Communion Tables to Christen the Lords Table with the name of an Altar and high Altar too The Golden Altar for incense was sett before the Arke of the testimony in the first Tabernacle And the Altar of burnt offeringe which was most holy was placed before the doore of the Tabernacle of the tent of the congregation Exo. 40. 5. 6. 10. to 34. that by Gods owne appointment And when a burnt offeringe of fowles was brought to the Altar the Preist was to wringe the blood of it out at the side of the Altar and to plucke awaye the Croppe with the Feathers and to cast it besides the Altar on the EAST parte by the place of the ashes Levit. 1. 14. 15. 16 Therefore the Altar of burnt offeringe did not stand Altar-wise against the East end of the Tabernacle or Temple When the Temple was built Solomon placed the Altar of incense covered with pure gold not with in but by the Altar The brazen Altar hee placed before the Lord at the Tabernacle of the congregation in the fore front of the house Another Altar hee erected in the middle of the Court before the house of the Lord on which hee offered burnt offerings and meate offerings and the fatt of the peace offerings And when the Temple was consecrated the Levites which were the singers with their soons and their brethren beinge arayed in white Lynnen havinge Cymballs and Psalteries and Harpes stood AT THE EAST END of the Altar to witt of the golden and brazen Altar and with them an 120 Preists soundinge with trumpetts All which is cleerely related 1. Kings 6. 22. c. 8. 64. 2. Kings 16. 14. 2. Chron. 1. 5. 6. c. 5. 12. c. 7. 7. Neither of these Altars therefore stood in the Sanctum Sanctorum in the East side or against the East wall of the Temple When Elijah built an Altar to the Lord in Mount Carmel hee made a trench round about the Altar as greate as woulde containe two measures of seede And the water ranne round about the Altar and filled the trench 1. Kings 18. 32. 35. His Altar therefore was placed in the middest where men might stand round about it not against a wall Wee reade of David that hee build an Altar to the Lord in the threshinge flowre of Araunah 2. Sam. 24. 18. 25. And that not against the East wall thereof but in the middest of it as is evident by Psal. 26. 6. I will wash my hands in innocencie soe wil I COMPASSE thyne Altar â— Lord. Wee reade in the 2. Kings 11. 11. that when Jehoash was Crowned the Gaurd stood every man with his weapons in his hand round about the Kinge from the right corner of the Temple to the left corner alonge by the Altar and the Temple The Altar therefore stood not in the corner or East end of the Temple but in the middest or neere the entringe into it In the 2. Kings 12. 9. wee reade that Jehoiada the Preist tooke a chest and bored a hole in the â—idd thereof and sett it besides the Altar on the right side as one commeth into the house of the Lord. So as the Altar stood not at the upper end of the Temple but neere the entry almost as our fonts nowe stand And c. 16. 14. It is recorded that Kinge Ahaz brought the brazen Altar which was before the Lord from the forefront of the house from betweene the Altar and the house of the Lord and put it on the northside of the Altar not the East Manaâ—â—eh built Altars for al the
will needs turne 1. Cor. 9. 13. 14. c. 10. 18. 19. 20. Hâ—br 7. 11. 12. 13. 14. Jewes or Gentiles or both in erectinge Altars must likewise imitate them in the scituation of their Altars or else reject their Altars as well as their manner of scituation in the middest which they refuse to followe For the third howe the Jewes Tables the Table at which our Saviour instituted the Sacrament were scituated It is apparant that they were so placed as that they usually sate round about them This is evident by the 1. Sam. 16. 11. where Samuel sayd to Jesse send and fetch David for wee will not sitt ROUND till hee come hither so the Hebrewe and Margin read it and by Psalm 128. â— Thy children shal bee like Olive plants ROUND ABOUT THY TABLE Our Saviour and his Disciples at the Institution of the Lords supper sate round about the Table after the Jewish Custome as is evident by Matthew 9. 10 c. 26. 20. 26. 27. Mar. 14. 18. 19. 20. c. 16. 14. Luke 7. 37. 49. c. 11. 39. c. 22. 14. 27. 30. c. 24. 30. John 13. 12. 18. 23. 1. Cor. 10. 1â— 21. c. 11. 20. c. compared with the two former texts Hence Thomas Godwyn in his Jewish Antiquities l. 3. c. 2. p. 114. 115. writes thus In the dayes of our Saviour it is apparant that the gesture of the Jewes was such as the Romanes used The Table BEING PLACED IN THE MIDDEST ROUND ABOUT THE TABLE Were certaine bedds some tymes two some tymes three some tymes more accordinge to the number of the guests upon these they lay downe in manner as followeth each bedd contained 3. persons some tymes 4. sildome or never more If one lay upon the bedd then hee rested the upper part of his body on the left elbowe the lower part lyinge at length upon the bedd but if many lay upon the bedd then the uppermost did lye at the bedds head layinge his feet behinde the seconds backe in like manner The third or fourth did lye each restinge his head in the others bosome Thus John leaned on Jesus bosome Iohn 13. 23. Their Tables were perfectly circulare or round whence their manner of sittinge was termed Mesibah a sittinge ROUND and their phrase of invitinge their guests to sit downe was sit ROUND 1. Sam. 10. 11. Psal. 128. 3. Thus hee with whom all the Rabines and Commentators on these texts accord So amonge the Romans the Tables were placed and the guests sate downe in the selfe same manner as they did amonge the Iewes as Godwyn in his Roman Antiquites l. 2. sect 3. c. 14. Records yea amonge most Nations in all their Feasts their Tables at which they sate downe to eate or drinke were ever placed in such sorte and with such a distance from the wall that the guests sate round about them And so are all the Tables placed here in England none ever seeinge a dyninge-Table placed like a side-Table against a wall in such sorte as our Communion Tables are nowe scituated in many places If then all Tables at which men eate drinke have ever both amonge the Iewes Romans our owne all other Nations been placed in the midst of the roome or in such sort that men might sitt round about them Why shoulde not then the Lords Table especially when wee eate and drinke the Lords supper bee placed in the midst of the Church or Chauncell in such sort that all the people maye sitt or kneel round and eate and drinke about it since Christ himselfe his Apostles when hee instituted this Sacrament had their Table thus situated and satt round it as all acknowledge Is not that order best which all Nations ages yea Christ himselfe his Apostles used And are not those both factious obstinately schismaticall whoe contrarie to the usage of all Nations ages our Saviours owne example will place the Lords Table Altar-wise like a dresser or side Table against the East wall of the Church as farr of as maye bee from the people that so none maye sitt receive neere it much lesse round about it that without all Reason sence or president undoubtedly they are yet such is the sottishnes pride superstitious wilfulnes of many of our domineeringe Prelates whose will is their only reason Religion Lawe that they will bee wiser then Christ then his Apostles then all the worlde besides no place seemes soe fittinge to them for the Communion Tables situation as that which is most unfitt the East end of the Chauncell wall against which one side of it must leane for feare of fallinge is there imprisoned impounded with railes barrs for feare of runninge awaye O Madnes ô folly whether are these mens witts sences fledd whoe are thus soe strangely frentike out of their overmuch learninge For the 4. How Communion Tables some tymes tearmed Altars improperly were placed in the Primitive Church The fore-mentioned passages of Eusebius Augustine the 5. Councill of Constantinople Bishop Jewell others assure us that they were placed in the midst of the Church or Quire not at the East end against the wall as they are now To these I shall add That Socrates Scholasticus and Nicephorus record That in the Church of Antioch in Syria the Altar stood not to the East but towards the West Walafridus Strabus records the same in expresse words further informes us that many did praye from the East to the West And that the Jewes where ever they were usually prayed towards the Temple at Hierusalem as Daniell did in greate Babell which stood East from Hierusalem as Esay 43. 5. Ier. 49. 28. Dan. 11. 44. Zach. 8. 7. Math. 2. 1. 2. and all Mapps witnesse Soe that Daniell prayinge towards it turned his face directly West not East as our Novellers dotingly fancie whoe alleage his example for turninge their faces in prayer the buildinge of Chancells Chappell 's Churches Altars placinge Communion Tables and bowinge toward the East when as hee prayed Westward only and his example is quite opposite and point blanke against them and their superstitious easterly adoration derived from Necromancers and those heathen Idolaters Ezech. 8. 16. whoe worshipp the risinge sunne toward the East as D. Willet Synopsis papismi contr 9. qu. 6. Error 52. proves against the Papists And from thence Walafridus thus concludes Wee beinge instructed by these examples knowe that those have not erred neither doe they erre whoe either in Temples newly built to God or cleansed from the filthynes of Idolls have sett their Altars towards divers clymates accordinge to the opportunitie of the places because there is no place where God is not present for we have learned by most true relation that in the Church of Ierusalem which Constantâ—ne his mother built over the Sepulchre of our Lord of a wonderfull greatenes in a round forme in the Temple of Rome anciently called Pantheon consecrated by Boniface by
Phocas the Emperors permission to the honour of all Sancts in the Church of S. Peter the Cheife of the Apostles Altars have been placed not only towards the East but likewise distributed into other parts and quarters of the Church These since they were so placed either unpossibly or by necessitie wee dare not disapprove Let every man abound in his owne sence The Lord is high to all those whoe call upon him in truth and salvation is farr from sinners Let us drawe neere to us Thus hee Gregorie Nazianzen in his 21. Oration p. 399. declaming against the unworthie Bishops and Ministers of his age sayth thus They intrude them selves unto the most holy Ministeries with unwashen hands and mindes as they say and before they are worthy to come unto the Sacraments they affect the Sanctuary it selfe and CIRCUM SACROSANCTAM MENSAM permuntur protenduntur and are pressed thrust forward ROUND ABOUT THE HOLY TABLE not Altar esteeming this order not an example of virtue but a maintenance helpe of life A cleare evidence that the Communion Table was then so scituated that the Ministers might goe and stand round about it S. Chrysostome in his first Homilie upon Esay 6. 1. I sawe the Lord sittinge c. hath this passage concerninge the Lords Table doest thou not thinke that the Angells stand ROVND ABOVT THIS DREADFVLL TABLE AND COMPASSE IT ON EVERY SIDE with reverence A cleare Evidence that the Table was soe placed in Churches in his age that men and Angells might stand round about and Compasse it on every part To witt in the middest of the Church or Quire as S. Augustine his coaetanean witnesseth in plaine words where no doubt it alwayes stood as the learned Thomas Verow testifyeth till private Popish Masses wherein the Preist only receiveth removed it to the East end of the Quire or Chauncell neere the wall as remote as might bee from the people If any object as the late Coale from the Altar doth that Socrates Scholasticus and Nicephorus write That in most Churches in their tymes the Altar was usually placed toward the East I answeare First that before their dayes in Eusebius Chrysostomes Augustines the Emperour Zeno his tyme it stood in the midst of the Church or Quire and soe it did in Durandus his age 1320. yeares after Christ and in the Greeke Churches anciently and at this day as Bishop Jewell hath formerly proved 2. Neither of these two Authors affirme that the Altar or Communion Table stood at the East end of the Church or Quire close against the wall as nowe they are placed the thing to be proved but only toward the East part of the Church ad Orientem versus sayth Nicephorus that is neerer to the East then to the West end of the Church to witt in the middest of the Chauncell or Quire which in many Churches was placed at the East Isle then as our Chauncells Quires are nowe though not in all as is evident by the forequoted authorities Soe as the argument hence deduced can bee but this non sequitur Altars in their dayes stood usually toward the East end of the Churches to witt in the midst of the Quires Chauncells which stood Easterly as our Communion Tables stood till nowe of late Therefore they stood Altarwise against the East wall of the Church or Chancell as some Novellers nowe place them whereas the argument hold good the contrarie waye They were placed toward the East end of the Church therefore not in the verie East end Altarwise since toward the East is one thinge and in the East another as toward London in case of scituation or travell is one thinge in London another That which is toward London beinge not in it as hee whoe is toward Marriage is not yet actually maried Wee reade of Daniell that hee prayed toward Hierusalem Dan. 6. 10. yet hee was then in Bable many miles from it Wee reade likewise of certaine Idolaters and of noe others but them in Scripture for the Jewes usually prayed Westward the Tabernacle and Temple beinge soe scituated whoe had their backs toward the Temple of the Lord and their faces toward the East worshipped the sunne towards the East yet they sâ—ood not in the East end but in the inner-Court of the Lords house at the doore of the Temple betweene the porch and the Altar which stood West not East ward yea the Scripture makes a manifest difference betweene toward the East and in the East Gen. 2. 14. 1. Kings 7. 25. 1. Chron. 9. 24. c. 12. 15. 2. Chron. 4. 4. c. 31. 14. Joel 2. 20. Math. 2. 1. 2. This objected authoritie therefore makes against not for our Innovators whoe can produce noe one authenticke writer testimonie or example for above a thowsand yeares after Christ to prove that Altars or Lords Tables stood or were scituated Altarwise against the East wall of the Quire in such manner as nowe they place them there beinge many pregnant testimonies to the contrarie that they stood in the midst of the Quire Church or Chauncell where nowe they ought to stand as they did in former ages I come nowe to the 5. thinge to examine what place is most proper and Convenient for the situation of the Communion Table especially when the Sacrament is administred Noe doubt the midst of the Church or Chauncell not the East end of it where it is newly placed as the Rubricke of the Communion booke Queene Elizabeths Injunctions the 82. Canon the fore-cited Fathers and writers resolve in expresse tearmes and that for those ensuinge reasons which under correction cannot bee answeared First because the table at which our Saviour originally instituted the Sacrament was placed in the midst of the roome hee and his Disciples sittinge then round about it and soe administringe and receivinge it as the premises manifest Nowe wee ought to immitate our Saviours institution and example as neere as maye bee 1. Cor. 11. 1. 23. 24. Eph. 5. 1. 2. 1. Pet. 2. 21. John 2. 6. not only in the substance of the Sacrament but likewise in all decent and convenient Circumstances whereof the scituation of the Table in the midst of the congregation is one Amonge the 6. reasons why the Lords board shoulde rather bee after the forme of a table then of an Altar published by Kinge Edward the 6. and his Councill this was the 5. and Cheifest Christ did institute the Sacrament of his body and blood at a Table not at an Altar wherefore seinge the forme of a Table is more agreeable with Christs institution then the forme of an Altar therefore the forme of a Table is rather to bee used then the forme of an Altar in the administration of the holy Communion The same argument holds as firme in the situation of the Table The placinge of it in the midst of the Church or Chauncell is more agreable with Christs institution then the standinge of
it Altarwise against the wall at the East end of the Quire Therefore this situation of it is rather to bee used then the other 2. Because this is most agreeable to the practice of the Apostles Fathers and primitive Church in the purest tymes as I have already manifested of the reformed Churches beyond the Seas 3. Because it is most consonant to the booke of Common prayer Queene Elizabeths Injunctions the Bishops owne Canons and the judgement of our best writers 4. Because it is the most usuall and proper situation of tables amonge all Nations in all ages both a broade at home whoe place their Tables at which they eate and drinke in the midst of their dyninge roomes at least wise in such sorte that men maye sitt or stand round about them The Lords Table therefore beinge a table to eate and drinke at 1. Cor. 10. 16. 17. 20. 21. c. 11. 20. and the Communion it selfe usually tearmed both in Scripture all sortt of writers from the Apostles dayes till nowe the Lords supper â— Coâ— 11. 20. this scituation of it must bee fittest decentest which is Common to all suppinge tables doth best expresse resemble the nature of a supper by standinge in the midst of the Communicants and their sittinge standinge or kneelinge round about it altogeather not by severall files and turnes like soe many bidden-guests Whereas the placinge of it Altarwise like a Dresser or sideCubberd not a Table the causinge of men to come upp to the raile by severall files and there to receive by turnes kneelinge doth neither expresse the one to bee the Lords table nor the other to bee the Lords supper 5. Because this scituation of the table in the midst will more move the simple people from the superstitious opinions of the Popish Masse Altars Preists sacrifices and private Masses where the Preist alone Communicates drawe them upp to the right use of the Lords supper Whereas the placinge of it Altarwise against the East wall of the Chauncell nowe urged is nothinge else but to usher Altars Preists publique and private Masses adoration of Altars and the Hostia transubstantiation and the whole body of Poperie into our Church againe as the Papists themselves doe every where cracke vaunt and all whoe are not wilfully blinded maye at first viewe discerne by wofull experience This forme of scituatinge the Lords Table and administringe the Sacrament was used in the primitive Church till Poperie private Masses thrust it out When Poperie Masses Masse Preists Transubstantiation Altars adoration of the Hostia other Popish trash were abolished this scituation of it was againe revived as a Soveraigne Antidote against these popish innovations and soe hath continued eversince The alteringe therefore of it must needs tend to the introduction of those things againe soe ought with all diligence and courage to bee with stood 6. Because this scituation is most orderly and decent and that in 5. regards First Because the Minister thereby maye bee more conveniently heard of the Communicants in his prayer his administration and Consecration which many cannot heare when the table stands at the furthest end of the Quire or Chauncell in most greate Churches and parishes 2. Because there the CoÌ„mmunicants alsoe maye more conveniently and in greater number communicate with the Minister then they can doe when the Table stands at the end of the Quire or Chauncell as remote as maye bee from the people Both these reasons are rendred in the Common prayer booke Queene Elizabeths Injunctions and the 82. Canon neither can they bee gaine sayd 3. Because the Communicants when the table stands in the midst maye more easily see the Minister when and howe hee consecrates the Sacrament then when hee is more remote and maye the better make their Confession to Almightie God and saye Amen to every prayer as they are enioyâ—ed 4. Becanse it is lesse troublesome to the Minister to distribute and to the people to receive the Sacrament at his hands the nearer both of them are to the Communion Table 5. When the Table stands in the midst all the Communicants maye receive togeather in the seates next adjoyninge to the table without any disturbance disorder noise or stirr as they are expressely Commanded to doe 1. Cor. 10. 16. 17. c. 11. 20. to the end c. 13. 40. 23. to 34. whereas this newe dâ—vise of settinge the Table at the East end of the Chauncell against the wall and causinge the Communicants to come upp in severall disorderly rankes and squadrons to the raile and there to receive divides the Communion Communicants and Congregation makinge so many Communions and Congregations as there are Companies breeds a Confusion disorder disturbance noise distraction and oft tymes a Contention in the Church in causinge the people to march upp and downe some one waye and some another to contend whoe shall first receive or take the uppermost place to crowd thrust and hinder on the other in passinge to and fro drives many from the Sacrament whoe woulde else receive it breeds many quarrells factions schismes and divisions betweene the Minister the people hinder the Communicants much in their Meditations prayers reverence devotion attention singinge enforceth the people whoe are olde blinde lame sicke impotent to march upp to the Minister to receive whoe shoulde rather come to them inverts the practice Custome of our Church ever since reformation lengthens the administration and puts all into a Combustion yea into Confusion causinge many to turne Papists and Seperatists 7. The Lords Supper is called of us in our Litargie Homiles Articles THE COMMUNION his Table the COMMUNION TABLE Now that which is thus common ought to be placed IN THE MIDDEST of the people in a Common not a peculiar place as the Latine phrase IN MEDIO CONSTITUTUM or COLLOCATUM ever used to expresse a thing that is Common the Scriptures quoted in the next insuing reason evidence Whereas the placing of the Table so farre from the people the rayling of it in that so none but the Minister may have accesse unto it destroyes both the Communion Communion Table in appropriating it to the Minister and sequestring it from the people 8. The Communion Table ought to bee placed in the midst of the Church and Congregation because that is the place wherein God Christ have especially promised their Gracious presence as the ensuinge Scriptures evidence not at the East end of the Church or Chauncell as our Novellers fondly dreame Magisterially determine Hence Psal. 46. 5. God is sayd to bee in the MIDDEST of his holie place and Cittie Psal. 48. 9. Wee have thought of thy lovinge kindnesse oh God in the MIDST of thy Temple Jer. 14. 9. yet thou ô Lord art in the MIDST of us and wee are called by thy name Hosea 11. 9. I am God and not man the holie one in the MIDST of thee Joell 2.
27. yee shall knowe that I am in the MIDST of Israell Zeph. 3. 5. 15. 17. yee have polluted the Sanctuarie the Lord is in the MIDST thereof The Kinge of Israell even the midst of thee The Lord thy God in the MIDST of thee is mightie Zech. 2. 5. For I sayth the Lord will bee the glorie in the MIDST of her Math. 18. 2â— Where two or three are gathered togeather in my name there am I in the MIDST of them Luke 2. 46. Christs Parents found him in the Temple sittinge in the MIDST of the Doctors John 20. 19. when our Saviour appeared to his Disciples after his resurrection hee came and stood in the MIDST of them and sayde Peace bee unto you Rev. 1. 13 and 2. 1. The sonne of man is sayde to bee to walke in the MIDST of the 7. golden Candlesticks which are there interpreted to bee the 7. Churches Rev. 5. 6. Christ the Lambe is sayde to stand in the MIDST of the Throne and in the MIDST of the Elders Soe Exod. 3. 4. God called to Moses out of the MIDST of the burninge bush a type of the Church Soe hee spake to Moses out of the MIDST of the Clowd Exod. 24. 16. And tells the Isralites that hee dwells in the MIDST of their Campe. Numb 5. 3. The Lord spake unto you out of the MIDST of the fire Deue. 4. 12. And they heard his voyce out of the MIDST of darkenes and of fire too Deut. 5. 22. 23. The Prophet Esay c. 12. v. 6. writes thus Crie out and shoute thou Inhabitant of Zion for greate is the holye one of Israell in the MIDST of thee By all which texts it is evident That God and Christ are sayde to bee principally present in the MIDST of the Temple congregation people whereas there is not so much as one place throughout the Scripture that sayth they are specially present at the Temple Congregation people The Communion Table therefore beinge Christ mercie seate the place of our Saviours speciall presence upon Earth and his Chaire of Estate as Giles Widdowes Shelford Reeves other Novellers dogmatize ought to bee placed in the middest of the people Church and Congregation where these Scriptures joyntly affirme that God and Christ are more immediately specially present if they bee more in one place of the Church and Temple then another as they saye hee is 9. Add to this that the Apostle sayth Our bodies are the Temples of Christ and the holy Ghost 1. Cor. 3. 16. 17. c. 6. 19. 2. Cor. 6. 16. And where doe both of them principally dwell with in these Temples but in the heart seated in the midst of the bodie Gall. 4. 6. Eph. 3. 17. So also doe they principally dwell and manifest themselves in the midst of our Materiall Temples and Congregations Therefore for this and the precedent reasons our Communion Tables ought to bee scituated in the midst of our Churches or Quires as they have been in auncient tymes where our Injunctâ—ons Canons writers Communion booke and the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 2. confirminge the same prescribe that they shoulde stand at least wise when the Sacrament is administred 10. The Altar of Incense and the shewbreade table stood not in the Quire or Sanctum Sanctorum but in the midst of the Sanctuarie or bodie of the Temple as the premises Evidence and Godwyn in his Jewish Antiquities l. 2. c. 1. p. 78. 79. records Nowe these beinge in some sorte tipes of the Communion Tible intimate which the Fathers sometimes have an Altar improperly in relation to them that it shoulde be scituated in such manner as these were Havinge thus produced these unanswearable reasons for the placinge of the Communion Table in the midst of the Church or Chancell specially at the Sacraments administration I come nowe in the 6. place to examine those reasons which are or can bee alleaged by our Novellers for placinge Communion Tables Altarwise against the East end wall of the Quire of Chauncell The first reason alleaged by them is this The high Altar or Lords Table sayth dotinge M. Robert Shelford Preist in his Sermon of Gods house Cambridge 635. p. 17. 18. usually standeth at the East end of Gods house Idque propter Christum c. and that because of Christ wheâ— is called the light of the worlde and ORIENS to with the branch Zeph. 6. 12. and is likewise expected to come from the East Math. 24. 27. which put into an argument is this Christ is called the light of the vvorld the BRANCH and as some men thinke shall come to Iudgment from the East Therefore the Communion Table high Altar ought to stand Altarvvise against the East end of the Church What frentique Bedlam logicke divinitie is this what Consequence or Coherence in this argumentation Is not this farr worse then that of Durandus other Pâ—pists Christ is called a Rocke and a Corner stone 1. Cor. 10. 4. Ergo Altars and Lords Tables must bee made only of stone To whicht I might vetorâ— from this text of Zech. 6. 12. Christ is calâ—ed the branch Therefore Altars and Lords Tables ought to bee made only of wood not stone Christ beinge else where called a vyne Tree of life c. more probable inference then this M. Shelford deduceth from it Therefore high Altars and Communion Tables ought to stand Altarwise against the East end of the Church since it is warranted by the practice of the Primitive Church whose Communion Tables and Altars were made only of wood not stone as Bishop Jewell and Bishop Babington prove at large out of Augustine Optatus Chrysostome Athanasius and others as our Communion Tables are and ought to bee by the direct prescript of the booke of Common prayer which calls it Gods BOARD the Homily of the worthy receivinge of the Sacrament Queene Elizabeths Injunctions at the end Kinge Edward the 6. and his Privy Councills letter and 6. reasons Fox Acts and Monuments p. 1211. 1212. Canons 1571. p. 18. Canons 1603. Can. 20. 21. 82. Arbishop Parkers visitation Articles Art 2. Doctor Fulke notes on the Remish Testament on Math. 23. sect 7. on Heb. 13. sect 6. on Apoc. 6. sect 2. Answeare to Martyn c. 17. sect 15. 16. 17. Doctor John Reynolds conference with Hart. p. 462. 477. 478. to 524. Bishop Morton his Protestants appeale l. 2. c. 6. sect 2. p. 146. Doctor Willet Synopsis Papismi the 9. generall Controversie qu. 6. part 2. Error 55. p. 498. Bishop Jewell and Bishop Babington in the places quoted in the Margin Bishop Farrar Fox Acts and Monuments Artic. 20. p. 1404 1406. Bishop Ridley in his last examination Fox ibidem p. 1601. 1602. And his farewell to his frends in generall Ibidem p. 1610. compared with p. 1211. 1212. Though some turne them nowe adayes into Altars made of stone But to come to a more particular examination of this part of this argument First hee
sayth Christ is the light of the worlde Ergo. Communion Tables ought to stand Altarwise at the East end of the Church This ceâ—tainely is but a madd Consequence For first Christ is noe Corporall or naturall but a spirituall and supernaturall light enlightninge mens understandings only by the light of his word his grace and spirit John 1. 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. Heb. 6. 8. Eph. 1. 18. Psal. 19. 8. not their corporall eyes 2. Hee is an universall light in this respect John 1. 8. 9. not scituated or fixed in the East but diffused over the whole worlds as farr as his Church is spread 3. The place where this light is ordinarily dispensed in the readinge preachinge of his word is not the Communion Table oâ— Altar but the Pulpitt readinge deske standinge for the most part about the midst of our Churches not at the East but West end of our Chancells 4. There is no Analogie betweene the Communion Table and light unlesse in respect of those Candlesticks unburninge tapers which some Popish Novellers place for a double shewe upon it contrarie to the Homilies Articles which expressely condemne them 5. Light is of a diffusive nature spreadinge it selfe into every quarter-indifferently torches or Candles that give light are Commonly placed in the midst Math. 5. 15. not at the East end of the roome or Table that they maye give light to all that are in the house Witnes the greate Lamp in the midst of Paules Quire or greate braunched Candlesticks in the midst of our Churches that of the Apostle Phil. 2. 15. Amonge whom yee shyne as lights of the worlde in the MIDST of a crooked and perverse Nation The Candlesticks Lampes amonge the Jewes were placed not in the East but South-side of the Tabernacle Exod. 40. 24. 25. In the Temple the Candlesticks that were placed 5. on the Northside 5. on the South 2. Chron. 4. 7. but none in the East end So that from these particulars it appeares that there is no Analogie betweene light and the Couimunion Table that if any argument maye bee thence deduced for its scituation it will bee but this That it ought to stand in the midst or in the South or Northside of the Church because the Lamps lights Candlesticks were are soe placed in the Tabernacle Temple and most of our Churches and Christ is sayd to bee and walke in the midst of the golden Candlesticks Rev. â— 13. 20. c. 2. 2. For the second braunch of this argument Christ is a branch for soe Oriens is used Zeph. 6 12. the place hee quotes Ergo the Lords Table ought to stand at the East end of the Church As it is a ridiculous Inconsequent fitt for a Cambridge Ignoramus where this good Logicall argument with many such like was printed so there is little Analoges betweene branches Lords Tables unlesse in regard of matter For First Trees and branches growe not in Churches or Temples 2. They springe upp are planted as well West North and South as East are Commonly planted with us West South to avoid the East North blastinge windes 3. Christ is a branch yea a tree of life seituated not in the East but in the midst of the Paradice of God Rev. 2. 7. of which the tree of knowledge of good and evill in the midst of Paradice Gen. 2. 9. c. 3. 3. was but a tipe This allusion therefore as it is impertinent there beinge no similitude betweene the Lords Table a branch so â— proves that the Communion Table shoulde bee placed in the midst of the Church because Christ the tree of life and the tree of knowledge typifyinge him were planted in the midst of Paradize a tipe of the Church For the third That Christ shall come out of the East Ergo the Communion Table ought to stand in the East end of the Church As this argument is taken out of Bellarmine l. 3. de Sanctis c. 3. who useth it to justifie and prove that wee onght to praye and build our Churches towards the East and well answeared and refuted by Doctor Willet in the name of the Protestants whoe condemne this superstition which many nowe pleade for So it is built upon a false foundation For first no Scripture sayth That Christ shall come to Iudgment from the East but that hee shall come in the Cloudes Rev. 1. 7. Math. 24. 30. and soe come againe as hee ascended Acts 1. 11. But hee ascended upright in a cloude into heaven not East ward Acts 1. 9. 10. 11. Luke 24. 51. Marke 16. 19. Therefore hee shall so discend Heaven beinge neither East West North or South in regard of the Earth its Center but diametrally about it And soe Christs discent from it must bee such 1. Thess. 4. 16. 2. That text of Math. 24. 27. As the lightninge commeth out of the East and shineth Even unto the West so shall the comminge of the sonne of man bee as all Orthodox divines generally accord relates only to the celeriâ—ie sodainenes and terriblenes of Christs comminge to judgment which shall bee as swift as suddaine and terrible as lightninge 1. Cor. 15. 52. 1. Thess. 4. 16. c. 5. 2. 3. 2. Thess. 1. 7. 8. 9. 10. Rev. 6. 12. to the end Luke 21. 34. 35. Marke 13. 32. to 37. which thus explaine it not to that part of heaven from whence hee shall descend which if it bee East in respect of one part of the world must yet bee West North South as to other parts in relation to that Clymate or Country to which hee shall descend the worlde beinge plainely Circular globall havinge no angles nor squares so no East West North or South if simplie considered in it selfe 3. Admitt that Christ shoulde come to Iudgment out of the East in respect of England and these partes of the worlde yet this is no Reason to prove that our Communion Tables shoulde bee placed at the East end of our Chauncells Altarwise for then no doubt the primitive Christians woulde have so placed it not in the midst of their Churches For First the Lords Table serves only for the administration of the Sacrament instituted to shewe forth Christs till hee come 1. Cor. 25. 26. not to demonstrate the manner of his second comminge to Iudgment to which the Table hath no relation Christs second comminge therefore havinge no reference to the Communion Table nor the Table to it can bee noe argument for its Easterlie scitnation 2. The Apostle in the 1. Cor. 11. in all matters Circumstances concerninge the administration of the Sacrament sends us only to Christs originall institution not to his second Comminge But the Table at which hee instituted the Sacrament stood in the midst as I have proved Therefore our Communion Tables shoulde so stand nowe let Christs come to Iudgment which waye hee please 3. Christs gives us this charge by his Apostles do all things decently and in
as venerable as worthy to take place and precedency as the Table both in respect of matter use relation to God and Christ and divine institution undoubtedly they are therefore to be all ranked in an equipage as the lavers Shewbread Tables and Altar were in Solomons Temple which stood one by the side of the other 2. Chron. c. 4. 5. 6. If the East end of the Church or Quire be the most worthy and fittest for the Tables scituation nowe why was it not so for the Arke the Altar and shewbread Table heretofore why did those never stand in the East end of the Temple but in the West the midst of it or in the Court as the premises Manifest Certainely if the East end of the Temple or Synagogues had no such dignitie no preheminenâ—ie or implements in them heretofoâ—e by divine appointment our Novellers can have little reason to pleade that they ought to have any such precedency honour or use nowe The third reason alleaged for the placinge of Communion Tables Altarwise at the East end of our Quires and Chancells is because they are High Altars So Saelford Reeves and the Coale from the Altar and Bishop Mountague in his least Lent Sermon stile them contrarie to the dialect of our Church after the Popish language This is the true reason why they are placed Altarwise to bringe in Altars Preists bowinge to Altars kneelinge at and before them to adore the Hostia to which wee are already proceeded and in fine to sett upp publique and private Masses yea the whole body of Poperie againe For which these are immediate preparatives of which they are reall parts and adjuncts This and this only is the true undoubted cause all others meere idle pretences to delude the people why our Communion Tables are now turned into Altars in many places lately rayled in Altarwise in most parishes against the East wall of the Quire And that this alone is the true cause in those Prelates Churchmen who originally presse it not only the qualities doctrines and actions of the parties themselves which every mâ—ns Conscience experience visibly discernes unlesse he be strangely hoodwinckt but the things themselves compared with the historie of former tymes declare For if wee looke into the storie of the Church wee shall finde that the first thing that was done upon the beginning of reformation was the pullinge downe of Altars and settinge upp of Communion Tables and the first thinge againe acted upon the restitution of popery was the settinge up of Altars turninge Communion Tables into Altars as now our Prelates doe upon which Masses presently were sayd Thus we reade that in the yeare of our Lord 1528. upon the Reformation of Religion at Berne Constance Geneâ—a Basill Stransburge and other Cittie 's the first thinge they did was this they proclaymed that Masses ALTARS Images in all places shoulde bee abolished and there upon the Images and Altars with Ceremonies and Masses were accordingly removed and abolished in them all About the yeare of our Lord 1556. The Waldoyes in Piemont beinge sommoned pressed to forsake God and revolt againe to Idolatrie which they had begun to cast of agreed togeather to make a solemne protestation that they woulde utterly forsake the false Religion of the Pope and live and die in the maintenance and confession of Gods word and truth Whereupon they sayd lett us all goe to morrowe into the Temple to heare the word of God after let us cast to the ground all the Idolls and ALTARS to which they all agreed sayinge let us soe doe yea and that the very same houre in the which they have appointed us to bee at the Councill house Whereupon the next daye after they assembled themselves in the Church of Body as soone as they came into the Temple without any further delaye they beate downe the Images cast downe the ALTARS After Sermon they went to Billers where they beate downe their Images and ALTARS Our famous Kinge Edward the 6. about the beginninge of Reformation in his Raigne gave order to pull downe Altars and sett upp Communion Tables in most Churches of the Kingdome And to the ende that all of them might bee totallie abolished Bishop Ridley to oppease all diversity about the forme of the Lords board and to procure one Godlie uniformity exhorted all his Diocesse unto that which he thought did best agree with Scripture with the usage of the Apostles with the primitive Church and which might Highly further the Kings most Godly proceedings in abolishing of divers vaine and superstitioâ—s opinions of the Popish Masse out of the hearts of the simple which would be more holden in the minds of the people by the forme of an Altar then of a Table as the King and Councell in their 1. and 3. reasons had resolved and to bring them to the right use taught by Holy Scripture of the Lords Supper Hereupon I say he appointed the forme of a right Table to be used in his Diocesse according to the King Councells instructions and consideration and in the Church of Paules brake downe the wall standing by the High Altars side And upon this occasion as it most probable he wrote his booke DE CONFRINGENDIS ALTARIBUS of breaking downe Altars registred by Bishop Bâ—le among other his workes though not now extant that I can find Not long before this John Hoper Bishop of Gloster afterwards a Martyr as was that worthy Ridley preaching before King Edward the 6. in his 3. Sermon upon Jonah printed Anno 1551. Cum Privilegio tooke occasion thus to Censure Altars and to move the King utterly to demolish them If question now be asked is there then no Sacrifice left to bee done of Christian people yea truly but none other then such as might be done without Altars and they be of 3. sorts The first is the Sacrifice of thankgiving Psal. 51. 17. 19. Amos 4. 5. Hos. 14. 2. Heb. 13. 15. The second is beneficence and liberality to the poore Mich. 6. 8. 1. Cor. 16. 1. 2. 2. Cor. 8. 19. Heb. 13. 16. The 3. kind of Sacrifice is the mortifying of our owne bodies and to die from sinne Rom. 12. 1. Math. 12. Luke 14. If we studie not dayly to offer these Sacrifices to God we be no Christian men seing Christian men have no other Sacrifices then these which may and ought to be done without Altars There should among Christians be no Altars And therfore it was not without the great wisdome and knowledge of God that Christ his Apostles and the Primitive Church lacked Altars For they knew that the use of them was taken away It were well then that it might please the Magistrates to turne the Altars into Tables according to the first institution of Christ to take away the false persuation of the people they have of Sacrifices to be done upon Altars For as long as the Altars remaine both the ignorant
people and the ignorant evill perswaded Preist will dream alway of Sacrifice Therfore were it best that the Magistrates remove all the Monuments and Tokens of Idolatry and superstition then should the true Religion of God sooner take place which he thus seconds in his 8. Sermon upon Ionah A great shame it is for a Noble King Emperour or Magistrate contrary to Gods word to deteyne or keep from the devill or his Ministers any of their goods oâ— Treasure as the Candles Images Crosses vestiments Altars For it they be kept in the Church as things indifferent at length they will be maintayned as things necessary as now we find true by late wofull experience And in his 4. Sermon upon Jonah hee proceeds thus But this prayer of Jonas is so acceptable it might be thought of some men that the place where Jonas prayed in should have beâ—tered it as the foolish opinion of the world is at this time that judgeth the Prayer sayd at the High Altar to be better then that which is sayd in the Quier that in the Quier better then that which is sayd in the body of the Church that in the body of the Church better then that which is sayd in the Feild or in a mans Chamber But our Prophet sayth the Lord hath no respect to the place but to the heart faith of him that prayeth And that appeareth For penitent Jonas prayeth out of the whales belly and miserable Job upon the dung heape Daniell in the Cave of the Lyons Hieremie in the claypit the theife upon the Crosse S. Stephen under the Stones wherfore the grace of God is to bee prayed for in every place and every where as our necessity shall have need and wanteth solace Although I commend the prayer made to God in the name of Christ to belike in every place because that our necessity requireth helpe in every place yet I doe not condemne the publike place of prayer whereas Gods word is preached his holy Sacrament used and common prayer made unto God but allow the same and sory it is no more frequented haunted but this I would wish that the Magistrates would put both the Preist Minister and the people into one place and shut up the partition called the Câ—auncell that seperateth the Congregation of Christ one from the other as though the vayle and partition of the Temple in the old Law yet should remaine in the Church where indeed all signes types are ended in Christ And in case this were done it should not only expresse the dignity grace of the New Testament but also cause the people the better to understand the things read there by the Minister and also provoke the sayd Minister to a more study of the things he readeth least he should be found by the Iudgement of the Congregation not worthy neither to read nor Minister in the Church further that such as would receive the Holy Communion of the body and blood of Christ might both heare and see playnly what is done as it was used in the Primative Church when as the abomination done upon Altars was not knowne nor the Sacrifice of Christs precious blood so conculcated and troden under feet Hereupon as also upon M. Bucers forecited opinion to this purpose and William Salisburyes Battery of the Popes Batereulx London 1559. and not upon M. Calvins Letter as the late Author of a Coale from the Altar misreports p. 29. 40. all the Altars in England by the King and his Councells direction were utterly taken away out of all Cathedrall Collegiate Parish Churches and Chappell 's and Tables sett up in their steed in such manner as they stood till now of late to witt in the middest of the Church or Chauncell as appeares by that is storied of Bishop Farrar by M. Fox concerning the Church of Carmarthen in Wales where the Archdeacon of Carmarthen in his visitation under this good Bishop finding an Altar sett up in the body of the Church for Celebration of the Communion contrary to the King and Councells Ordinance caused the sayd Altar to be taken away and a Table TO BE SET IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CHURCH which the Vicar removing Bishop Farrar himselfe in the third yeare of King Edwards Raigne Commaunded the Vicar to sett the Table WITHOUT THE CHANCELL againe neere the place where it stood before for the ministration of the Communion After this in the 5. 6. yeare of King Edwards Raigne as Altars themselves were quite cashered out of the Church according to the prophesie of William Mauldon who in thâ— dayes of King Henry the 8. when the Masse most flourished and the Altars with the Sacrament thereof were in most High veneration so as in mans reason it might seeme unpossible that the glorie opinion of them soe depely rooted in the hearts of 〈◊〉 many could by any meanes possible so soone decay and vanish to naught yet not withstanding he being under the age of 17. yeares by the spirit no doubt of prophesie declared to his Parents that they should see it shortly even come to passe that both the Sacrament of the Altar and the Altars themselves with all such plantations as the Heavenly Father did not plant should be plucked up by the rootes c. so the very name of them was wholly expunged out of the Booke of Common Prayer by the whole Convocation and Parliament and the name of Gods-boord Lords-Table Table and Holy-Table inserted and retained both in the Rubricke and Order for the Celebrating of the Communion therein prescribed the Table enjoyned therein at the tyme of Celebrating the Communion to stand in the body of the Church or Chauncell And in the Homilies then published by the King and Parliaments authority the name of Altar was wholly omitted in the Homilies concerning the right use of the Church and of the worthy receiving the Sacrament and the name of the Lords Table only used and mentioned in them as he that reades them may discerne A truth so cleare that the nameles Author of the Coale from the Altar p. 39. 40. confesseth that the former Liturgie wherein was the name of Altar was called in by Parliament 5. and 6. C. 6. 11. and the word Altar left out of the Common-Prayer Booke then established yeâ— upon this only ground not from any scandaâ— which was taken at the name of Altar by the Common people but from the dislike taken against the whole Liturgie by Calvin who was all in all with my Lord Protector c. A very likely tale I promise you As if the whole Parliament and Clergie of England would be so rash or inconsiderate as to alter their whole Liturgie formerly confirmed by Parleament only to humor M. Calvin without any Scripture reason or other convincing considerations and upon no other groundes Certainly either this ground of the Alteration is but forged and conjecturall though positively layd downe or else the Church of England
ministred in his remembrance Ergo he is come c. As for the taking downe of the Altars it was done upon just consideracions for that they seemed to come to nigh to the Jewes usage Neither was the Supper of the Lord at any time more better ministred more duely received then in these later dayes when all things were brought to the rites and usage of the Primitive Church Lincolne A goodly receiving I promise yow to set an Oyster Table in steed of an Altar and to come from puddings at Westminister to receive and yet when your Table was constituted yow could never be content in placing the same now East now North now one way now another untill it pleased God of his goodnes to place it cleane out of the Church Ridley your Lordships unreverent termes doe not elevate the thing c. To this speech of Bishop White M. Fox affixeth this marginall Censure Bishop White blasphemously calleth the board of the Lords Table An Oyster Table Which just Censure the Coale from the Altar most injuriously turnes upon M. Prynne for calling the Lords Table a Drester A slovenly and scornefull terme deserving no other Answer then what the marginall Notes in the Acts Monuments give in the one place to the Deane of Westminster or in the other to the Bishop of Lincolne D. White And truly had the Gentleman in the place pretended expresly termed the Lords Table a Dresser as these two nickenamed it An Oister board or Oyster Table I should have passed thus verdict upon him that he was Nigâ—o CARBONE notandus defamedly marked with this blacke Coale But examining his words finding them to be misreported to lay a causeles blemish on him I must needs conclude that the namcelesse Preist or Colier who hath fastned this scandall on him is as blacke shameles as his Coale For he never termes the Lords Table a Dresser but only Censures such who against the Rubricke for the Communion Queen Elizabeths Injunctions and the Canons An. 1571. not 1471. as himselfe mistakes whiles he blames him for mistaking p. 18. which is no mistake the English Coppy which he no question saw and followed printed the same yeare with the Latine which is p. 15. warranting the quotation true both in regard of Page words what ever the Coale either ignorantly or maliciously spatters out to the contrary at the administration of the Sacrament place the Communion Table Altarwise with one side against the wall more like a Side-Table Cupbard or Dresser then a Lords Table to eat and drinke at Like or more Like a Dresser or Sideboard then a Table is all he writes wherein he is as farre from blasphemie or calling the Lords Table a Dresser as the Scripture itselfe is from blasphemie or terming Christ a thâ—â—fe when it sayth Matth. 24. 4â— 1. Thess. 5. 4. 2. Pet. 3. 10. Rev. 3. 3. c. 16. 15. that Christ the day of the Lord shall come as or like a Thiefe in the night the comparisons similitudes being both apt the one in regard of the maner of the Tables situation the other in respect of the sodaine fearfull unexpectednes of Christs second comming to Judgment though the name of a Dresser unfit to be imposed on the Lords Table of a theife upon our Saviour By which slovenly terme M. Prynne is so farre from calling the Communion Table that he phraseth it A religious implement of Gods owne appointment But to returne againe to that from which this false Calumnie in the Coale hath diverted me This our famous learned Martyr Bishop Ridley not long after this his Conference to shew how eagerly the Popish Prelates were bent to remove Communion Tables set up Altars in their steeds how much he detested this their practise in his excellent Farwell to his friends in generall breakes forth into these patheticke words Othou now wicked and bloody Sea why dost thou now set up againe many Altars of Idolatrie which by the word of God were justly taken away Why hast thou overthrowne the Lords Table Why dost thow dayly delude thy people masking in thy Masses in steed of the Lords Supper The Papists in their discourses with our stout learned Martyr M. John Philpot were as hote as a Coale for Altars the Sacrament of the Altare For in his 11. examination on S. Andrewes day 1555. Christopherson who reasoned with him demaunded whether S. Augustine did not call the Sacrament the Sacrament of the Altar To which M. Philpot replied That maketh nothing for the probation of your Sacrament For so he and other ancient writers doe call the Holy Communion of the Supper of the Lord in respect that it is the Sacrament of the Sacrifice which Christ offred upon the Altar of the Crosse the with Sacrifice all the Altaâ—s and Sacrifices done upon the Altars in the old Law did prefigure and shadow the with pertaineth nothing in your Sacrament hanging upon your Altars of Lime and Stone Christopherson No doth I pray yow what signifieth Altar Philpot. Not as yow falsely take it materially but for the Sacrifice of the Altar of the Crosse. Christopherson Where find yow it ever so taken Philpot. O yes that I doe in S. Paul to the Heb. 13. where he sayth We have an Altar of which it is not lawfull for them to eate that serve the Tabernacle Is not Altar there taken for the Sacrifice of the Altar and not for the Altar of Lime and Stone Christopherson Well God blesse me out of your company yow are such an oâ— stinate heretike that I never heard the like Philpot. I pray God keep me from such blind Doctors which when they are not able to prove what they say then they fall to blaspheming as yow doe for want of better proofe In the CoÌ„ference between Archbishop Crammer and D. Martyn March 155â— Martyn speakes thus to Crammer in defence of Masse Altars which he couples both togeather If yow marke the Devills language well it agreeth with your proceedings most truly For cast thy selfe downeward sayd he and so taught yow to cast all things downe wardes Downe with the Sacrament downe with the Masse downe with the Altars c. In Cardinall Pooles visitation at Cambridge January 1557. his Deputy Visitors sett forth certaine Statutes whereby they would have the university hereafter ordered wherein among other things they prescribed at how many Masses every man should be day by day and in what sort every man in his entrance into the Church should bow himselfe to the Altar a ceremonie superstition and Idolatrie now taken up by many contrary to or without all Scriptures Law and Canon though thus enjoyned by borrowed from the Papists whose superstitious toyes are now much imitated and adored In Aprill the same yeare Cardinall Poole in his ordinary Visitation Articles with in his Diocesse of Canterbury Article 18. 23. concerning the people inquired whether the Altars in the
Churches be consecrated or no And whether there doe burne a lampe or candle before the Sacrament And if there doe not that then it be provided for with expedition As Altars were thus erected bowed to pleaded for and countenaunced in Queen Maries time upon the revivall of Popery Communion Tables removed scoffed at so immediately upon her death the discent of the Crowne to Queen Elizabeth this religious Princes by her Injunctions published in the first yeare of her Raigne commaunded the Altars in Churches to be removed which was done in many Churches in sundrie parts of the Realme before such Injunctions upon the alteration of religion and Tables to be placed for ministration of the Holy Sacrament according to the FOURME OF THE LAW THERFORE PROVIDED to witt the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 2. ratâ—fying the Common Prayer Booke which prescribes the Sacrament to be administred at a Table not at an Altar By which it is apparant that the ministring of it at an Altar is against not according to the Statute and so punishable thereby And hereupon Mathew Parker Archbishop of Canterbury in his Metropoliticall Visitation Anno 1560. had this Article of Inquirie among others Whether they had a comely and decent Table for the Holy Communion sett in place prescribed by the Queenes Majestyes Injunctions And whether your Altars be taken downe according to the Commaundement in that behalfe given After this Anno 1561. the Booke of Orders published by the Queenes Commissioners and Booke of Advertissements published Anno 1565. enjoyned decent Communion Tables standing on a frame to be made and sett in the place were the steps of the Altar formerly stood stiling them alwayes Communion Tables not once an Altar and putting them in opposition to Altars And the Canons made in the Synode at London Anno 1571. which neither the Epistoler and M. Prynne hath misquoted as the Coale doth falsely accuse them it being p. 18. in the English Copy then printed which they followed though p. 15. in the Latine which the Colier followed who it seemes never saw the English prescribe that Churchwardens shall see there be a faire joyned Table which may serve for the administration of the Holy Communion and a cleane cloth to cover it that they shall see that all Roodeloâ—ts in which wooden Crosses stood all other Reliques of superstition be clane taken away which being executed accordingly thereupon Hierom Osorius the Rhemists Dorman Harding Hart and other Papists complained against Queen Elizabeth and the Church of England in their severall writings that they had cast downe Images Churches Altars removed them out of their Churches and set up prophane unhallowed Tables to administer the Sacrament on in their steed which Act of theirs Bishop Jewell Gualther Haddon M. Fox M. Deane Nowel M. Thomas Bâ—acon D. Fulke and M. Carthwright D. Willet D. Reynolds not only justify as lawfull but as necessary commendable affirming that Queen Elizabeth the Church of England might as lawfully remove and breake downe Popish Altars Images and Crucifixes as Ezekiah and other good Kings of Judah and Israell demolished brake downe Heathenish groves Idolls Images Altars by Gods owne speciall commaund and approbation From all which particular passages we may clearly discerne That one of the first things which our owne other reformed Churches did upon the bringing in of Religion abolishing of Popery was the breaking downe and abandoning of Altars together with their name and placing of Communion Tables in their steed that the first thing againe the Papists did upon the restitution of Popery was the erecting of Altars casheering Communion Tables That the setting up of Altars turning Communion Tables into Altars or Altarwise is to no other end but to usher Masses Popery the inseperable concommitants followers of Altars which cannot subsist without them into our Church againe That our godly Martyrs Princes Prelates writers yea and our Church itselfe have constantly both in their Iudgments practise disputes condemned Altars as Iewish Heathenish Popish unlawfull unto Christians That they are contrary to the Statute of 1. Eliz. 1. 2. The Booke of Common Prayer Homilies Injunctions Canons Orders Advertissements and Articles of the Church of England were never yet written or preached for patronized enjoyned or erected but among and by Papists that to receive the Masse sett up Popery which fall or stand together with them And that the Communion Table is no Altar nor High Altar as our Novellers dreame and teach All this being thus premised I come now to give a particular answer to this 3. reason for placing Communion Tables Altar-wise First therfore I deny that the Communion or Lords Table is either an Altar or High Altar that it ought so to be stiled or reputed or that any Altars ought to be set up in our Churches First because the Scripture never tearmes the Lords Table an Altar but a Table 1. Cor. 10. 21. only prescribes a Table only not an Altar for the administration of the Sacrament 2. Because our Common Prayer Booke Homilies Articles Canons Injunctions writers doe the like distinguishing the Communion Table Altars as opposite contradistinct things inconsistent one with the other abandoning not Altars only themselves but the very name of Altars as Jewish and Heathenish 1. Cor. 9. 13. c. 10. 18. 19. being quite expunged so as it is not to be found in our Booke of Common Prayer Articles Injunctions Homilies Canons which never terme the Lords Table an Altar either properly or improperly 3. Because Altars Lords Tables differ much one from the other 1. In matter the one being made of stone gold brasse or earth for the most part Exod. 20. 24. 25. c. 38. 30. c. 39. 38. 39. c. 40. 5. 16. Jos. 8. 30. 31. the other only of wood 2. In forme the one almost quite square Exod. 7. 12. c. 30. 1. 2. 3. 10. c. 37. 26. c. 38. 2. Rev. 9. 13. the other not so broade as long the one having hornes oft times to which delinquents fled and layd hold the other not 3. In name appellation that in all languages 4. In use the one being only to offer Sacrifices incense burnt offrings on Exod. 31. 128. c. 37. 25. c. 38. 1. Lev. l. 7. 9. being therfore called an Altar Altare Ara from the Sacrifices and fires burning on it as Isiodor Cilepine Holicke and others witnes the other only to eat and drinke at 1. Cor. 10. 21. c. 11. 20. 21. 2. Sam. 9. 7. Lu. 22. 30. 5. In institution the one Legall Iewish Typicall Heatheâ—sh the other Euangelicall Christian of which anon the one instituted before and under the Law the other only under the Gospell 6. In their appendices attendants circumstances For First Altars were usually consecrated both among the Jewes and Gentiles Exod. 40. 10. 11. Numb
testify were fore charged and complained on that they had no Altars nor Images It is evident therfore that they tooke all Images yea all Altars to by the same reason to be vnlawfull in the Church of the Temple of God and therfore had none though the Gentiles therfore were Highly displeased with them following this rule we must obey God rather then men So the Homily which Bishop Jewell thus seconds There have been Altars sayth M. Harding even from the Apostles time and that even as it is used now farr from the body of the Church c. This man could never utter so many untruthes together without some speciall priviledge For first where he sayth The Apostles in their time erected Altars It is well knowen that there was no Christian Church yet built in the Apostles times for the faithfull for feare of the Tyrants were faine to meet together in private houses in vacant places in woodes and Forests and in Caves under the ground And may we thinke that Altars were built before the Church Verily Origen thal lived above 200. yeares after Christ hath these words against Celsus Objicit nobis quod non habemus Imagines aut Aras aut Templa Celsus chargeâ—h our religion with this that we have neither Images nor Altars nor Temples Likewise sayth Arnobius that lived somewhat after Origen writing against the heathens Accusatis nos quod nec Templa habeamus â—oc Imagines nec Aras Yee accuse us for that we have neither Churches nor Images nor Altars And Volateranus Vernerius testify that Sixtus Bishop of Rome was the First that caused Altars to be erected Therfore M. Harding was not well advised so confidently to say That Altars have ever been even sithence the Apostles time Learned M. Thomas Beacon in his Supplication in the third Volumme of his workes printed Cum Privilegio and dedicated to all the Bishops of England by name and to Queen Elizabeth herselfe London 1562. f. 16. In his Comparison between the Lords Supper and the Popes Masse f. 102. 103. Reliques of Rome Tit. of Church Goods f. 322. writes thus Christ his Apostles and the Primitive Church used Tables at the administration of the Holy Communion The Primitive Church more then 200. yeares after Christs ascension used Tables at the Celebration of the Divine Mysteries And who so rude or ignorant of Antiquities which knoweth not that Pope Sixtus the second about the yeare of our Lord 265â— brought in the altars first into the Church utterly forbidding Tables any more to be used from thenceforth at the administration of the Lords-Supper when notwithstanding from Christs ascention unto that time the Lords Supper was alway ministred at a Table according to the practise of Christ of his Apostles and of the primitive Church Pope Sixtus the second ordained first of all that the Supper of the Lord should be celebrated at an Altar which before was not the use for the Holy mysteries of the Lords body and blood untill that time was ministred upon a Table according to the practise of Christ of his Apostles and of the primitive Church here may all men see from whence the Popish altars come for the which the stuborne stout Papists doe so stoutly strive some now too that call themselves Protestants about the yeare of our Lord if stories be true 265. came in the Altars first into the Church others affirme that they came in about the yeare of our Lord 594. But I beleive that Altars came not into the Church before the yeare of our Lord 590. when the Popish peevish Private Masse began first to creep in Volateranus Durand Flascit Mass. Pet. Aequillinus Joan. Sella Thus M. Beacon The same is affirmed by learned M. Calshill in his answer to Marshalls Treatise of the Crosse printed at London 1565. f. 31. 32. who proves out of Origen l. 8. Cont. Celsum that Christians in Origens age had neither Images nor Altars by M. Thomas Cartwright in his Confutation of the Rhemish Testament one the 1. Cor. 11. sect 18. v. 19. p. 415. with other of our writers All these Authorities to which the Papists could never yee replie the Coale from the Altar page 45. 46. 47. will blow away at one breath informing us that all these our Authors were mistaken in Origens and Arnobius meaning who must be understood not that the Christians had no Altars in their Temples but that they had no Altars for bloody or externall Sacrifices as the Gentiles had For otherwise it is most certaine that the Church had Altars both the name and thing and used both name and thing along time together before the birth of Origen or Arnobius either which he proves by the Testimonyes of Tertullian Irenaeus Cyprian Ignatius the Apostles Canons and Heb. 13. 10. To which I answer first that this namelesse Author in modesty good manners should have rather deemed himselfe mistaken in the meaning of Origen Arnobius then our Homilies and these our learnedest writers whose judgments authorities certainely will over ballance his 2. These Authors tooke their words meaning aright what ever is pretended as appeares 1. By the Gentiles objection itselfe The Gentiles charged the Christians that they had neither Temples nor Images nor Altars Was their meaning then that they had Temples indeed but not to sacrifice in Images to but not to adore or that in truth they simplie had neither Temples nor Images Certainely the Coale itselfe would blush at the first exposition the Papists might else thus pritilie evade these authorities against Images that the Christians had Images but not to adore though the Gentiles objected they had none and Lactantius Minucius Felix too about that age expresly resolved that they had no Temples nor Images at all Their meaning therfore being as our Homilies those very words themselves resolve that they had no publicke Temples no Images at all for any assemblies use or purpose their meaning likewise must be that they had no Altars at all for any purpose not no Altars for any bloody externall Sacrifices as the Gentiles had but yet they had them to administer the Sacrament on as he falsely glosseth it Since the wâ—nt of Temples Imagesâ— Altars are all coupled together objected to them in the same sence and manner Now had the Christians in that age had Temples but not for Idolls service Images but not to adore Altars but not to offer bloody and externall Sacrifices on as the Coale Glosseth it the Gentiles would then never have objected the want of Temples Altars or Images to them as is probable since they had them but their not sacrificing on them adoring them as they did not making a right use of them whoâ— they had them as we tax all couetous men or Nonpreaching Ministers that are Schollers not for having no mony or learning but for not making such use of them as they should The very objection therefore cleares it
so often as he shall doe any good or pions thing For God desires not a Sacrifice neither of a male creature neither of death blood but of a man and of life To which Sacrifice there is no need of Lawrell or sacred leaves to adore the Altar or rushes or greene turfes which verily are most vaine but of those things that are brought forth out of a sincere heart Therfore upon the Altar of God which is truly the greatest and is placed in the heart of man which cannot be defiled with blood is layd righteousnes Pretence faith innocence chastâ—ty abstinence What meane Temples what Altars what finally Images themselves which are either the monuments of dead or absent persons After which he disputes excellently against Images shewing why Christians had none and concludes that Dâ—â—â—lls were the Authors of Images wherfore without doubt there is no Religion where ever there is an Image From all these Fathers answers therfore it is most cleare and evident that the Christians in their times had neither Images nor Altars and that they held them both unlawfull unnecessary ranking them both together as Paganisme Iudaisme Idolatrâ—â— they then using no Altars no not to consecrate the Sacramention for feare of inclining to Gentelisme or Iudaisme or hardning the Iewes or Gentiles in the use of their abolished idolatrous Sacrifices or Altars 3. These Histories forecited which affirme that Pope Sixtus the second about th◠〈◊〉 65. or 294 or after first brought in Altars into the Church will quite take of this absurd evasion For these Altars thus introduced by him were not for any bloody or externall Sacrifice such as the Iewes or Gentiles used but only to consecrate receive the Sacrament at as all acknowledge If then Altars even to administer the Sacrament at were then first brought into the Church and not before as Historians generally accord then certaynely the Christians before that time had no Altars â—o not for the câ—lâ—brating of the Lords Supper on and so these authorities of Origen Arnobius Minucius Faelix and Lactantius must necessarily be intended as all the forecited writers and our Homilies interpret them that Christians had no Altars at all in those times no not to celebrate the Sacrament on and then the shift in the Coale that they had Altars for this purpose but not for any bloody or externall Sacrifices must need be fabulous and forged having no Authority that I know to backe it in any writer Now whereas to justify this apparant falsehood as I have manifested it the authority of some Fathers before Origen or Arnobius stiling the Lord Table an Altar is pretended and so the name and thing itselfe used and knowen among Christians before that age I answer that these authorities in truth when once examined will vanish into smoke To take them according to their Antiquity not their Order The ancient maine Authority is that of Heb. 13. 10. We have an Altar But this I shall afterward prove to be meant only of Christ himselfe not of the Communion Table as all the Fathers and ancient expositors our owne writers and Martyrs and all Protestant Divines accord without dissent or question So that this proves nothing That of the Apostles Canons the 〈◊〉 in pretended Antiquity hath been long since disclaimed branded as counterfeit coyne by all our learned writers and many Papists themselves yea as a spurious brat of some later age many hundred yeares after the Apostles and the puriest of these Fathers Neither are Ignatius his Epistles of any better authority being all forgid spurious aâ— M. Cooke hath undeniably proved them But admit them true yet they made little to the purpose For that of his 6. Epistle ad Maguesianos is but this Runne all together into the Temple of God as to one Altar to one Jesus Christ the High Preist of the only begotten God That in his 9. Epistle to the Philadelphians but this There is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one blood of his shed for us and one Cup which is distributed to us for all man one Altar to all the Church And that in his 7. Epistle of Tarsenses but this Esteeme Widdowes continuing in chastity as the Altar of God Neither of these stile the Communion Table the Altar the two first of them being meant of Christ the Church itselfe the last and first used figuratively and by way of similitude only the first applied to the Church the other to Widdowes neither to the Communion Table the thing in question That of Irenaeus the next auncient is to as little purpose his words advers Haereses l. 9. c. 20. being but these David was a Preist to God although Saul persecuted him Omnes justi Sacerdotalem habent ordinem yea all just men have a Preistly order or are Preists So all the Apostles of the Lord are Preists who neither inherit Feiles nor houses but alwayes serve God and the Altar of whom even Moses in Deutr. spake in the benediction of Levie who sayth to his Father and Mother I have not knowne thee c. Which Text speakes not of the Communion Table nor of any proper Preists or Altars but only of spirituall metaphoricall Preists Altars For it termed all righteous men Preists that attend on God and his Altar he sayth the Apostles were such when they plucked the eares of corne they then waiting on God and the Altar which was long before the Communion Table or Lords Supper was instituted so that here the Altar if properly meant is not the Lords Table but the Iewish Altar and that before the Sacrament of the Lords Supper instituted If allegorically and spiritually it is meant only of Christ our spirituall Altar Heb. 13. 10. Rev. 65. 9. on whom all the faithfull who are spirituall Preists 1. Pet. 2. 9. Rev. 1. 6. doe waste not of the Lords Table at which none but Ministers serve and consecrate So that this makes nothing to the purpose What Irenaeus meanes by the Altar will appeare more evidently by his owne words Adv. Haer. l. 4. c. 34. where as he stiles the Sacrament of the Lords Supper not the Sacrifice or Sacrament of the Altar but the Eucharist with which he joynes no other oblation used among Christians but only that of prayse and thankgiving neither of which requires an Altar so he writes that God will have us also offer a gift at the Altar to witt the Sacrifice of prayer and prayse frequently without intermission And least any one should here dreame of a materiall Altar here on earth he explaines himselfe what he meanes by the Altar and where this Altar is scituated in the very next words EST ERGO ALTARE IN CAELIS c. Therfore our ALTAR IS IN THE HEAVENS For thither all our prryers are directed Irenaeus therfore neither knew nor spake of any Altar that Christians then had but of Christ himselfe who is now in
none whom we ought more or rather to follow then God and Christ. S. Cyprian therfore tying himselfe and all men thus strictly to Christs institution example in all points and circumstances of the Sacrament And Christ his Apostles never administring it at an Altar nor stiling the Lords-Table an Altar his Apostles never serving nor giving attendance at an Altar I cannot but from hence conclude that these Passages certainely are none of Cyprians But to come to the particular scanning of these authorities 1. I answer That the first of them doth not precisly call the Lords-Table an Altar nor expresly affirme that Christians then had Altars being a meere allusion to the Preists and Altars under the Law relating to that of 1. Cor. 9. 13. Exod. 29. 37. 44. as the Text itselfe doth evidence Which allusions were frequent in our Ministers Prayers Sermons when we had no Altars in our Church for them to waite at nor Communion Tables called or knowen by the names of Altars 2. That it mentions a Canon and Constitution made at least 60. yeares after S. Cyprians time to wit in the Councell of Anegra An. 314. Canon 1. 2. 3. there being no such Canon extant in any Councell held in his age which makes it suspuious if not spurious written long after his decease 3. If this Epistle make any thing for Altars then it makes farre more against our Bishops tenets power now since it exprâ—sly affirmes that the people have power are boundin conscience to reject alwayes and not to receive any man for their Bishop or to admit him to enjoy his Bishopricke who shall fall away from the truth to heresie or Idolatrie that by such a lapse he ipso facto looseth his Bishopricke and becomes no Bishop neither ought to be admitted to his former degree of a Bishop but the people are to elect a new in his steâ—d the maine scope drist of this Epistle To the second I answer that this Epistle mentions a Canon LONG BEFORE in a full Councell not in S. Cyprians age for ought appeares before whose dayes we read of no such Councell but long after Yea Pamelius notes that this Epistle was written in some Councell in what he knoweth not belike in the 1. 3. or 4. Councell of Carthages an hundreth yeares after that under S. Cyprian In which Councells the Constitution mentioned in this Epistle written as is evident by the subject of it after these 3. Councells was made and decreed so not S. Cyprians And indeed the words Non est quod pro dormitione ejus fiat oblatio aâ—t deprecatio nomine ejus in Ecclesia frequentetur discover it rather to be some late Popish Friers then his But admit it his yet the word Altar and expression herein used is but an allusion to that of 1. Cor. 9. 13. doth not expresly define the Lords Table to be an Altar or so named or reputed in his age or that the Christians then had Altars And if it makes any thing for Altars in that age yet that expresly condemnes Clergiemens intermedling with any secular offices or imployments whatsoever since they ought wholy yea solely to addict and devote themselves to Gods service prayer preaching and other spirituall duties of their ministeriall function A shrowde checke to some of our present Prelates Clergiemen now most zealous for Altars who dare presume to take upon them temporall offices honors imployments so farre to ingage themselves in Secular Temporall Civill or State affaires that many of theâ— almost wholy neglect their spirituall functions and duties serving the world and Mammon more then God himselfe To the third I answer that this savors not of Cyprians age in being not the use of Christians then to consecrate chrisme or the Sacrament on an Altar much lesse the Doctrine of that time that Chrisme or the Eucharist could not be coÌ„secrated without an Altar which doctrine being quite contrary to what this Father delivers in his forecited Epistle to Coelicius I may farther affirme it to be a lâ—â—e Popish foâ—gerie and imposture then S. Cyprians And so 〈◊〉 all the premises I may now safely conclude notwithstanding these objected authorities in the Coale that the Primitive Church and Christians for above 250. yeares after Christ had no Altars neither did they repute or call the Lords Table an Altar and so my â— 9. Argument still holds good maugre all those spurious Fathers newminted evasions I now proceed to my 10. Argument 10. Those things and names which the whole Church State most approved writers of our Church of England have censured abandoned condemned upon good godly pious grounds considerations heretofore ought not to be patronized used written preached for revived or new erected in our Churches now But the whole Church State most approved writers of the Church of England have censured abandoned and condemned Altars with their names and the calling of the Communion Tables upon good godly pious grounds considerations heretofore Therfore they ought not to be patronized used written for or preached revived or new erected in our Churches now The Major is unquestionable the Minor evidently proved in by the premises which yet to make more perspicuous I shall further cleare by these ensuing authorities Osotius Dormian Harding the Rhemists Hart and other Papists complained of King Edward the 6. Queen Elizabeth and the Church of England in their time that they had taken away broken downe demolished all the Altars and cast them out of the Church setting up prophane Tables or Oister-boards as they termed them in their steeds using only such Tables not Altars to consecrate the Lords-Supper on blaming our Church in the selfe same manner for the selfe same cause as the Idolatrous heathens did the Christians in the Primitive Church for that we have no Altars to consecrate upon A cleare Confession and apparant evidence that the Church of England both in King Edwards and Queen Elizabeths dayes abolished and condemned Altars Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester scoffingly accused the Protestants in King Edward dayes that they had no Altars but Tables and Boardes to eat and drinke at to which Peter Martyr Regius Professor of Divinity in the Vniversity of Oxford in King Edwards dayes returned this answer What use is there of an Altar where no fire burnes nor beastes are slaine for Sacrifices And concerning bowing to Altars a Popish Ceremony or rather Idolatry or superstition now much practised both without Scripture Canon he there thus determines If an Angell from heaven would provoke us to adore either Sacraments or Altars let him be accursed I doe not thinke sayth hee that any of the Fathers were polluted with so grosse Idolatrie as to bow their bodyes before Altars especially when there is no Communion but if at any time they shall be discovered to have done thus let none of us be lead by
of the Lord where the Holy Communion was most Godly ministred are cast downe broken on peces and Idolatrous Altars built up to the God Moazim to Erkenwald to Grimbald to Catherine to Modwyne c. But ô Lord bannish out of the Congregation that most vile stinking Idoll the Masse and restore unto us the Holy blessed Communion that we eating together of one bread and drinking of one Cup may remember the Lords death be thankfull to thee Purge our Temples of all Popish abominations of Ceremonies of Images of Altars of Copes of vestmentes of Pixes of Crosses of Censers of Holy waterbuckets of Holy bread basketes of Chrismatories above all Idolatrous Preists and ungodly ignorant Curates And in his Comparison between the Lords Supper and the Popes Masse fol. 100. 101. 102. 103. He proceeds thus Christ in the administration of his most holy Supper used his common dayly apparel The Massemonger like Hickescorner being dressed with scenicall gameplayers garments as with an Humerall or Ephod with an Albe with a girdle with a stole with a maniple with an amice with a chesible and the like c. commeth unto the Altar with great Pompe and with a solemne pace Where it is wonderfull to be spoken how he setteth forth himselfe to all Godly men to be lamented pitied to children even to be derided to be lauged to scorne while like another Roscius with his foolish player-like mad gestures the poore wretch wrytheth himselfe on every side now bowing his knees now standing right up now crossing himselfe as though he were a frayd of spirites now stoping downe now prostrating himselfe now knocking on his breast now sensing now kissing the Altar the Booke and Patene now streching out his armes now folding his hands together now making charecters signes tokens crosses now lifting up the bread Chalice now holding his peace now crying out now saying now singing now breathing now making no noise now washing of hands now eating now drinking now turning him unto the Altar now unto the people now blessing the people either with his fingers or with an empty cuppe c. When it evidently appeareth by the Histories that the Ministers of Christes churche in times past when they ministred the Holy Sacraments either of Baptisme or of the Lords Supper used none other then their Common and dayly apparell yea and that unto the time of Pope Stephen the first which first of all as Sabellicus testifyeth did forbidd that from thence forth Preistes in doing their divine service should no more use their dayly aray but such holy garmentes as were appointed unto that use This Bishop lived in the yeare of our Lord 260. Christ simply and plainly and without any decking or gorgious furniture prepared and ministred that heavenly banket The Massemonger with a marvelous great pompe wonderfull gay shâ—w setteth forth his marchandise For he hath an Altar sumptuously built yea that is covered with most fyne and white linnen clothes so likewise richly garnished decked and trimmed with divers gorgious pictures and costly Images He hath also crewettes for water and for wine towels coffers pyxes Philacteries banners candlestickes waxe candles organes singing Bells sacry belles chalices of silver and of gold patenes sensers shyppe frankensence Altar cloothes curtines paxes basyns ewers crosses Chrismatory Reliques jewels owches precious stones myters crosse staves and many other such like ornaments more meet for the Preisthode of Aaron then for the mynistery of the New Testament It is nobly sayd of S. Ambrose the Sacraments require no gold neither do they delight in gold which are not bought for gold The garnishing of the Sacramentes is the redemption or deliverance of the captives and prisoners And verily those are precious vesselles which redeeme soules from death That is the true treasure of the Lord which worketh that that his bloud hath wrought Againe he sayth The church hath gold not that it should keepe it but that it should bestow it and helpe when need is For what doth it profitt to keep that which serveth to no use Christ did minister the Sacrament of his body and bloud to his Disciples sitting at the Table When the time was now come sayth Luke Jesus sate downe and his 12. Disciples with him Luc. 22. The Massemonger delivered the bread and wine to his geates kneeling before the Altar In distributing the mysteries of his body bloud Christ the Lord used not an Altar after the manner of Aarons Preistes whom the Law of Moses appointed to kill and offer beastes but he used a Table as a furniture much more meet to gett defend confirme encrease and continue Frendship But the Massemonger as one alwayes desirous to shed bloud standeth at an Altar and so delivereth the Communion to his people when as the Apostle speaking of the Holy banket maketh mention not of an Altar but of a Table saying 1. Cor. 10. Ye cannot be partakers of the Lordes Table of the Table of the Devills Neither did the ancient old Church of Christ alow these Aaronicall and Jewish Altars For they used a Table in the administration of the Lords Supper after the example of Christ as it plainly appeareth both by the Holy Scriptures also by the writings of the auncient Fathers and Doctors For the Sacrifices taken away to what use I pray yow should Altars serve among the Christians except ye will call againe and bring in use the Jewish or rather Idolatrous Sacrifices Truly Altars serve rather for the killing of beastes then for the distribution of the pledges of amity or Freindship neither doe those Altars more agree with the Christian Religion then the cawdron the fyrepanne the basen the sholve the fleshhoke the gredyrne and such like instruments which the Preistes of Aaron used in preparing dressing and doing their Sacrifices For unto the Honest seemly worthy celebration of the Holy banket of the body and bloud of Christ we have need not of an Altar but of a Table except ye will say that the primative Church which more then two hundred yeares after Christes ascension used Tables at the Celebration of the divine mysteries yea except ye will say that Christ himselfe the Author of this most Holy Supper did dote was out of his witts which not standing at an Altar like Aarons Preist but sitting at a Table as a Minister of the New Testament did both ordaine and minister this Holy Heavenly food For who is so rude ignorant of antiquities which knoweth not that Pope Sixtus the second about the yeare of our Lord 265. brought in the Altars first of all in the Church forbidding Tables any more to be used from thenceforth at the ministration of the Lords Supper when notwithstanding from Christes ascension unto that time the Lords Supper was alway ministred at a Table according to the practise of Christ of his Apostles and of
the Primative Church But there is but one only Altar of the Christians even Jesus Christ the Sonne of God and of the virgine Mary of whom the Apostle speaketh on this manner Heb. 13 We have an Altar whereof it is not Lawfull for them to eate which serve in the Tabernacle Our Altar is not of stone but of God Not Worldly but Heavenly not visible but invisible Not dead but living upon the which Altar whatsoever is offred unto God the Father it can none otherwise be but most thankfully and most acceptable And like as Christ administring the most Holy mysteries of his body blood to his Disciples sat downe at the Table So likewise his Giustes that is so say his Apostles sitting at the same Table receaved that Heavenly food sitting But the Massemonger delivereth not the Sacramentall bread unto the Communicants except they first of all kneele downe with great humility reverence that they may by this their gesture declare shew evidently to such as are present that they worship honour that bread for a God which is so great so notable wickednesse as none can exceed when it is plaine evident by the ancient writers that the Geastes of the Lords Supper long and many yeares after Christes resurrection sat at the Table So farre is it of that they either after the manner of the Jewes stood right up or after the custome of the Papists kneeled when they should receave the Holy mysteries of the body blood of Christ. So in his Cathechisme f. 484. To the same purpose he proceeds thus Father What thinkest thou is it more meet to receave the Supper of the Lord at a Table or at an Altar Sonne At a Table Father Why so Sonne For our Saviour Christ did both institute this Holy Supper at a Table and the Apostles of Christ also did receive it at a Table And what can be more perfect then that which Christ and his Apostles have done All the primative Church also received the Supper of the Lord at a Table And S. Paul 1. Cor. 10. speaking of the Lords Supper maketh mention not of an Altar but of a Table Ye can not be partakers sayth he of the Lordes Tables and of the Devills also Tables for the ministration of the Lords Supper continued in the Church of Christ almost 300. years after Christ universally and in some places longer as Histories make mention So that the use of Altars is but a new invention and brought in as some write by Pope Sixtus the second of that name Moreover an Altar hath relation to a Sacrifice And Altars were built and set up at the Commandement of God to offer Sacrifice upon them But all those Sacrifices doe now cease for they were but shadowes of things to come therfore the Altar ought to cease with them Christ alone is our Altar our Sacrifice our Preist Our Altar is in Heaven Our Altar is not made of stone but of flesh blood of whom the Apostle writes thus Heb. 13. We have an Altar whereof it is not Lawfull for them to eat which serve the Tabernacle Furthermore the Papists have greatly abused their Altars while they had such confidence in them that without an Altar or in the stead thereof a Super-altare they were perswaded that they could not duely truly and in right forme minister the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ. And this their Altar and Superaltar likewise must be consecrate have prints and charactes made therein washed with oyle wine and water be covered with a cloth of hayer and be garnished with fine white linnen clothes other costly apparell or els whatsoever was done thereon was counted vaine unprofitable The use also of Altars hath greatly confirmed maintained the most wicked error and damnable heresie which the Papistes hold concerning the Sacrifice of the Masse while they teach that they offer Christ in their Masse to God the Father an oblation and Sacrifice for the sinnes of the people both of the living and of the dead and by this meanes they greatly obscure and deface that most sweetsmelling alone true perfect and sufficient Sacrifice of Christes death And therfore all the Altars of the Papists ought now no lesse to be throwen downe and cast out of the Temples of the Christians then in times past the Altars of the Preistes of Baal So far is it of that they be meet to be used at the Celebration of the Lords Supper Finally who knoweth not that we come unto the Lords Table not to offer bloody Sacrifices to the preformance whereof we had need of Altars but to eate and drinke and spiritually to feed upon him that was once crucified and offred up for us on the Altar of the crosse a sweet smelling sacrifice to God the Father yea and that once for all Now if we come together to eate and drinke these Holy mysteties so spiritually to eate Christes body and to drinke his blood unto salvation both of our bodies soules who seeth not that a Table is more meet for the celebration of the Lords Supper then an Altar Father Thy reasons are good and not to be discommended But what sayest thou concerning the gestures to be used at the Lords Table Shall we receave those Holy mysteries kneeling standing or sitting Sonne Albeit I know confesse that gestures of themselves be indifferent yet I would wish all such gestures to be avoyded as have outwardly any appearance of evill according to this saying of S. Paul 1. Thess. 5. Abstaine from all evill apparaunce And first of all forasmuch as kneeling hath been long used in the Church of Christ at the receiving of the Sacrament thorow the doctrine of the Papistes although of it selfe it be indifferent to be or not to be used yet would I wish that it were taken away by the authority of the hier powers Father Why so Sonne For it hath an outward appearaunce of evill When the Papist thorow their pestilent perswasions had made of the Sacramentall bread and wine a God then gave they in Commandment streight wayes that all people should with all reverence kneele unto it worship honour it And by this meanes this gesture of kneeling creept in and is yet used in the Church of the Papistes to declare that they worship the Sacrament as their Lord God and Saviour Whence M. Roger Cutchud in his 1. 2. Sermon of the Sacrament An. 1552. printed Cum Privilegio Anno 1560. writes Many comming to the Lords Table doe misbehave themselves so doe the lookers on in that they worship the Sacrament with kneeling bowing their bodies knocking their breasts with Elevation of their hands If it were to be elevated served to the standers by as it hath beene used Christ would have elevated it above his head He delivered it into the hands of his Disciples bidding them to eate it not to hold up their hands
to receive it not to worship it so delivered it to them SITTING not kneeling Only God is to be so honered with this kinde of reverence no Sacrament for God is not a Sacrament neither is the Sacrament God Let us use it as Christ and his Apostles did If thou wilt be more devout then they were be not deceived but beware that thy devotion be not Idolatrie But I would wish with all my heart that either this kneeling at the receiving of the Sacrament were taken away or els that the people were taught that that outward reverence was not given to the Sacrament and outward signe but to Christ which is represented by that Sacrament or signe But the most certaine sure way is utterly to cease from kneeling that there may outwardly appeare no kind of evill according to this Commaundment of S. Paule 1. Thess. 5. Absteine from all evill appearaunce Lest the enemies by the continuance of kneeling should be confirmed in their error and the weaklings offended and plucked backe from the truth of the Gospell Kneeling with the knowledge of godly honour is due to none but to God alone Therfore when Satan commaunded our Saviour Christ to kneele downe before him worship him He answered It is writen thou shalt worship the Lord Math. 4. Standing which is used in the most part of the reformed Churches in these our dayes I can right well allow it if it be appointed by common order to be used at the receaving of the Holy Communion And this gesture of standing was also used at the Commaundment of God of the old Jewes Exod. 12. when they did eate the Paschall Lambe which was also a Sacrament and figure of Christ to come as our Sacrament is a signe figure of Christ come and gone Neither did that gesture want his mysteries For the standing of the Jewes at the eating of the Lords Passeover signified that they had a further journey to goe in matters of Religion and that there was a more cleare light of the Gospell to shyne then had hethereto appeared unto them which were wrapped round about with the darke shadowes of ceremonies againe that other yea and these more perfect Sacraments were to be given to Gods people which all things were fulfilled and came to passe under Christ the authour of the Heavenly doctrine of the Gospell and the institutor of the Holy Sacramentes Baptisme and the Lords Supper Now as concerning sitting at the Lords Table which is also used at this day in certayne reformed Churches if it were received by publique authority and common consent and might conveniently be used in our Churches I could alow that gesture best For as it is be doubted but that Christ and his Disciples sate at the Table when Christ delivered unto them the Sacrament of his body and bloud which use was also observed in the primative Church and long after So likewise it is most Commonly that we Christians follow the example of our M. Christ and of his Disciples Nothing can be unreverently done that is done of the example of Christ of his Apostles We come together to eate and drinke the Holy mysteries of the body and bloud of Christ we have a Table set before us is it not meet and convenient that we sitte at our Table The Table being prepared who standeth at his meat yea rather who sitteth not downe when Christ feed the people he bad them not kneele downe nor stand upon their feet but he commaunded them to sit downe John 6. which kind of gesture is most meet when we assemble to eate and drinke which thing we doe at the Lords-Table Neither doth the sitting of the Communicants at the Lords Table want her mystery For as the standing of the Jewes at the eating of the Lords Passeover signified that there was yet to come another doctrine then the Law of Moses even the preaching of the glorious Gospell of our Lord and Saviour Christ Jesu other Sacraments then Circumcision and the Passeover even the Sacraments of Baptisme and the Lords Supper So in like manner the sitting of the Christen Communicants at the Lords Table doth signifie preach and declare unto us that we are come to our journeyes end concerning Religion that there is none other doctrine nor none other Sacraments to be looked for then those only which we have already receaved of Christ the Lord. And therfore we sitting downe at the Lords Table shew by that our gesture that we are come to the perfection of our Religion and looke for none other doctrine to be given unto us Notwithstanding as I sayd before gestures are free so that none occasion of evill be either done or offred In all things which we call indifferent this rule of S. Paul 1. Thess. 5. is diligently to be obeyed Abstayne from all evill apparaunce Father I doe not disalow thy Iudgment in this behalfe But come of tell me what sayest thou concerning the vestures which the Ministers use at the ministration of the Lords Supper Sonne In some reformed Churches the Ministers use both a surplesse a cope in some only a surplesse in some neither cope nor surplesse but their owne decent apparell Father And what thinkest thou in this behalfe Sonne When our Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus did minister the Sacrament of his body blood to his disciples he used none other but his owne Commone dayly apparell so likewise did the Apostles after him and the primative Church likewise used that order so was it continued many yeares after tyll superstition began to creep into the Church After that time fonde foolysh fansye of mans idle brayne devysed without the authority of Gods word that the Minister in the divine service and in the ministration of the Holy Sacraments should use a white linnen vesture which we now commonly call a Surplesse Untill this tyme the Church of God continued in the simplicity of Christ of his Apostles requiring no paynted visores to set forth the glory beauty of our Religion which is then most glorious and most beautifull when it is most simple none otherwise setforth then it was used and left unto us of Christ of his Apostles And contrarywise it is then most obscured defaced when it is dawbed over with the vile vayne colours of mans wisdome although outwardly never so gorgious and glorious Afterward as superstition grew and encreased so likewise the people began more and more to be liberall in giving to the Church and in adourning decking trimming the Temples of the Christians yea that so much the more because they were now perswaded that such Temples and will workes pleased God deserved remission of sinnes everlasting life By this meanes came it to passe that the simple and plaine Tables which were used in the Apostolike and Primative Church were taken away and standing Altars set up and gorgeously decked with sumptuous
apparell garnished with gold pearle precyous stone And because that he which should minister at that gorgeous sumptuous Altar should answer in some points to the glory thereof therfore it was devised that the minister also should have on his backe galant and gorgious apparell as an Amyce an albe a tunicke a girdle a fannell a stole a vestment c. whereof some were made of silke some of veluet some of cloth of gold yea those garnished with Angels with Images with birds with beastes with fishes with floures with herbes with trees and with all things that might satisfy and please the vaine eye of the carnall man And all these things being before but voluntary greâ— afterward unto matters of so great waight importance yea unto such necessity that it was made a matter of conscience yea it was become deadly sinne to minister the Holy Communion without these scenicall Histrionicall Hickescorner like garments so that now to sing Masse or to consecrate as they use to say without these Popish robes is counted in the Church of the Papists more then twice deadly sinne so farr is it of that these Missall vestures are now things of indifferency Wherfore in my judgment it were meet and convenient that all such disguised apparell were utterly taken away forasmuch as it is but the vaine invention of man hath been greatly abused of the Massing Papistes For what hath the Temple of God to do with Idolls what concord is there between Christ and Beliall what have the vestiments of a Popish Altar to doe with the Table of the Lord Christ. Many such passages are in this Author which for brevity case I pretermitt Reverend M. Alexander Nowell in his Reprofe of Dormans profe printed at London Cum privilegio Anno 1565. fol. 15. 16. 17. 66. writes thus Touching the name of Altars which M. Dorman so gladly catcheth hold of here is S. Basill as he did before in S. Cyprian lib. 3. Epist. 9. where we call it the Lords Table we have for us good authority First that Christ instituted the Sacrament at a Table and not at an Altar is most manifest except M. Dorman would have us thinke that men had Altars in steed of Tables in their private houses in those dayes but our Saviour expressely saying that the handes of him who should betray him were upon the Table taketh away all doubting Luc. 22. c. 21. And S. Paule 1. Cor. 10. v. 21. also calleth it Mensam Dominicam the Lord his Table Sure I am that M. Dorman all the Papists with him can not say so much out of the Scriptures of the new Testament for their Altars as I have alledged for the Lords Table they may goe therfore joyne themselves to the Jewes as in multitude of Jewish ceremonies so in Altars also as it seemeth indeed they would both become themselves and make us too Jewes rather then Christians If S. Basill some old writers call it an Altar that is no proper but a figurative name for that as in the old Law their burnt offrings Sacrifices were offred upon the Altar so are our Sacrifices of prayer and thankgiving c. offred up to God at the Lords Table at it were an Altar But such kind of figurative speech can be no just cause to set up Altars rather then Tables unlesse they think that their crosses also should be turned into Altars for that like phrase is used of them where it is sayed Christ offred up himselfe upon the Altar of the Crosse. Now the old Doctors doe call it the Lords Table usually truly without figure and agreably to the Scriptures Concerning the spirituall worship or service of God or Sacrifice if yow will seeing it is also mentioned in S. Basill due to be done at the Lords Table which as a fore is noted he calleth an Altar it is not lacking in our Churches at the Lords Table that is to say true repentaunce of heart which is as the Prophet calleth it Psal. 51. v. 19. a service a Sacrifice pleasaunt unto God the offering up of our prayers prayses unto God which service and Sacrifice of prayse as the Psal. withnesseth Psa. 50. c. 14. v. 23. doth honour God specially that Sacrifice of thankes giving most peculiar to this Altar or Lords Table and to that Holy Sacrament having thereof a peculiar name being called with the Greekes Eucharistia to say thankes giving for the gratefull remembraunce of that one Sacrifice offered by our Saviour once for all which Sacrifice of thanks giving we joyntly with other present doe offer up to Christ our Saviour in the memoriall by him selfe and by faith in our heates doe communicate his precious body and blood a Sacrifice by him selfe offred for us Neither are our oblations or offrings to the poore lacking when we come to this Altar which S. Paul Phil. 4. v. 18. also calleth a Sacrifice acceptable and pleasant to God where as yow Papists have no such thing but only the bare word Offertorium without any offring for the poore saving that yow did not forget to receive the offrings for your selves at the usuall offring dayes and when any Dirige or Monthes mind did fall Thus yow se M. Dorman that we have even that same spirituall worship service and Sacrifice too if yow so will due to be done at this Altar that is to witt the Lords Table which S. Paul speaketh of here and any other Altar or service he meaneth not nor knew none And were yow not altogether to grosse S. Basill so oft speaking of spirituall worshipping and spirituall service might somewhat reforme your carnall and sensuall understanding yow se we doe not sticke to grant yow not only a spirituall worship and service but a Sacrifice too which yet hath no need of your Altars framed to your selves upon this false phantasie that the body and bloud of Christ are there offred by the Preistes for the quicke dead with the abuse of that distinction of the bloudy and unbloudy offering of Christs body applied to the same which altogether is a false fable a vaine dreame most meet for M. Dorman The Scriptures Heb. 10. v. 10. 12. 14. 13. 11. 12. doe thus teach us that Christ our Saviour once for all offred up his body and bloud upon the Altar of the Crosse the one only Sacrifice of sweet Saviour to his Father by the which one oblation of the body of Christâ— a Sacrifice for our sinnes once for ever offered and no more to be offered by any man we be sanctified and made perfit Wherfore the Popish Preistes which doe repeate often the Sacrifice of Christs death as they doe teach thereby as much as in them lieth doe take away the efficacie and vertue of the Sacrifice of Christes death making it like to the Sacrifices of the old Law the imperfection of which Sacrifices S. Paul doth prove by the often repetition of the
thus Thus Idolls brought in Oratories Chapels and Altars Sacrifices vestimentes such like vvhich all be utterly condemned of the Lord. fol. 31. 32. he proves out of Origen that the primative Christians had neither Images nor altars in their Churches And fol. 95. writing against the Popish manner of consecrating Churches he concludes thus then they put on their Massing coates and come like blind fooles with candles in their handes at noone daye and so proceed to the Holy Masse vvith renting of throtes tearing of notes chanting of Preists howling of Clarkes flinging of coales piping of Organs thus they continue a long while in mirth and jolity many mad parts be played But vvhen the vice is come from the Altar and the people shall have no more sport they conclude their service with a true sentence Terribilis est locus iste this place is terrible And have they not fisht faire thinke you to make such a doe to bring in the Devill O blind beastes O senselesse Hipocrites whom God hath geven over unto themselves that they should not see their owne folly and yet bevvray their shame to all the vvorld beside Bishop Babington in his Comfortable Notes upon Exodus chap. 27. fol. 307. 308. writes thus upon Altars Concerning the Altar how it vvas made for matter height length and breadth the text is plaine in the 8. first verses For the use of us we may note two things First that it was a figure of Christ as the Apostle to the Hebrewes expoundeth it And secondly that the Altars used in Popery are not warranted by this example But that the Primative Churches used Communion Tables as we now doe of boards and wood not Altars as they doe of stone Origen was above two hundred yeares after Christ he sayth that Celsus objected it as a fault to the Christians Quod nec imagines nec Templa nec Aras haberent that they had neither Images nor Churches nor Altars Arnobius after him sayth the same to the Heathens Accusatis nos quod nec Templa habeamus nec Aras nec Imagines yow accuse us for that we have neither Churches nor Altars nor Images Gerson sayth that Silvester the first caused stone Altars to be made and willed that no man should consecrate at a wooden Altar but himselfe and his successors there Belike then the former ages knew not profound reason that Altars must be of stone quia Peâ—ra erat Christus because the Rocke was Christ as Durandus after devised Upon this occasion in some places stone Altars were used for steddinesse and continuance wooden Tables having been before used but I say in some places not in all For S. Augustine sayth that in his time in Africa they were made of wood For the Donatists sayth he breake in sunder the Altar-boords Again the Deacons duty was to remove the Altar Chrysostome calleth it The Holy boord S. Augustine mensam Domini the Table of the Lord. Athanasius mensam ligneam the Table of wood Yet was this Communion Table called an Altar not that it was so but only by allusion metaphorically as Christ is called an Altar or our hearts be called Altars c. Marke with your selfe therfore the newnesse of this point for stone Altars in comparison of our ancient use of Communion Tables and let Popery and his parts fall and truth sound antiquity be regarded Touching the hornes of the Altar spoken of they litterally served to keep up the Sacrifice from falling of figuratively noted strength so that to bind the Sacrifice to the hornes of the Altar was to give themselves wholly with a strong Faith and only to rest trust and stay upon him and to tye all carnall affections fast also to the Altars Hornes by subduing and making them captive to God This Altar was in one place and the Sacrifice in one place nothing how Christ should only once and in one place offer up himselfe for all man kind Concerning the Lampes as little doe they warrant Popish Altars And Christians used no such follies apish imitations of things abrogated serving only for the time M. Thomas Cartwright in his Confutation of the Rhemists translation Glosses and Annotations on the New Testament upon the first Epistle to the Corinthians chap. 11. sect 18. fol. 415. writes thus of Altars The next note to discerne the Lords body is the removing of prophane Tables to consecrate Holy Altars So the Rhemists to which he replies Altars under the Law were Holy because they were builded upon the foundation of Gods institution Now they are prophane not only because they have no institution of God whereupon a stone may be layd but because they are contrary to the institution which propoundeth a Table Luke 22. 21. 1. Cor. 10. 21. 1. Cor. 11. 20. Math. 26. 20. 26. 27. and in the matter of the Eucharist never mentioneth Altar which is confirmed further in that this Sacrament is called in the Scripture the Supper of the Lord whereunto a Table doth well agree is never termed a Sacrifice for which an Altar is fit That it is sayd they sat downe a thing used at a table strang at an Altar whereat they sat not but stood that they did eat drinke which was never used at an Altar and is usuall at a table For although they did eate of that which came from the Altar yet they never did eate at it And if your Masonrie of Altars came from the Lords ordination under the Law why should our table be prophane or your Altar Holy considering that even under the Law there was as well a Holy table as an Holy Altar And setting apart the example of Christ by so much the table is fitter now then the Altar as the shew-bread standing upon the table hath a nearer Analogie with the bread of the Sacrament then had the flesh of slaine beastes which was layd upon the Altar Now your Hill Altars being failed of the Holy Scriptures goe to beg grace of the ancient Fathers where notwithstanding that they find some better entertainment then in the word of God yet is your building of Altars by their hands like unto Peters Chappell at Rome which is alwayes building and never built If they present yow with some rough stones to the setting of it up yet bring they no morter to hold them from falling upon heapes For often times they helpe you with the name of an Altar when the thing they signifie therby is a Communion Table assigning it the Deacons Dutie to remove the Altar that the ALTAR STOOD IN THE MIDDEST OF THE CHVRCH AND NOT AT THE END OF THE QVIRE even as they terme the Lords Supper a Sacrifice unproperly because it is a signe of the true Sacrifice when in truth they will only recommend unto us a Sacrament Other sometimes even the naked and bare name of Altar they take away from yow calling that whereupon the Holy things are set as it is a Table
as also the Holy things themselves they call by their proper names of signes Sacraments and not by the improper and borrowed speech of Sacrifice or host yea and if Altars were Lawfull yet could they argue no reall presence of the body of Christ upon them unlesse as they doe the bread so they will transubstantiate the dead bodyes of beastes into the body of Christ not then borne when those things were layd upon the Altar Neither hath Augustines Serm. de tempo 115. any thing thereof it hath of the keeping of the Feast of Hallowing of Altars which we suppose your selves doe not observe whereby it may well be doubted as of divers others of those Sermons whether it be Augustines or no especially seeing it giveth so High a commendation to Nebuchadnezzars testimony of Christ the Sonne of God Last of all let the good Reader understand that here in the Papists joyne with the Heathen which quarrelled with the Primative Churches that they had no Images Altars nor Temples whereunto agreeth that Sixtus Bishop of Rome was the first that erected Altars Also that Gerson affirmeth that Silvester Bishop of Rome was the first that caused Altars to be erected of stone whereupon it is also by another called a novelty to have Altars builded D. Willet in his Synopsis Papismi the 9. generall controversie Quaest. 6. part 2. Error 54. determines thus Altars we acknowledge none Altars we have none in our Churches S. Paul calleth it the Lords Table,1 Cor. 10. 21. where we receive the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ. And he calleth it bread which is broken 1. Cor. 11. 26. But bread is sett upon Tables not sacrificed upon Altars Augustine also calleth it Mensam Domini the Lords table Epist. 59. Epist. 50. He shewing how cruelly the Donatists handled Maximiâ—ian a Catholike Bishop beating him with Clubs even in the Church lignis Altaris effractis immaniter ceciderunt wounded him with the wood of the Altar which they had broken downe where though he improperly call it an Altar yet was it a Communion Table framed of wood and made to be removed not fastened to the wall as their Popish Altars were Damascus Epistol 4. Let the Locall Bishops be content to minister as Preists and to be partakers only of the Lords Table he sayth the Lords Table not the Lords Altar To these I might adde M. Robert Crowlie his Confutation of Myles Hoggard London 1548. where he writes thus Mal. 1. 7. God complaineth of the Isralites that they had polluted him in that they sayd the Table of the Lord is but a vile thing What other thing I pray you doe your sacrificing Preists they cannot abide the Lords Table they must have an Altar Sacrifice They cannot be contented which the Communion at the Lords Table according to the first institution in honest apparell but they must have a private Masse in Masking Cotes dashed full of turnes and halfe turnes beckings duckinges crossinges kissinges tossings tumblings besides the unreverent breathing out of words upon bread wine the holding them up to be worshipped as Gods Also Bishop Jewell Bishop Hooper B. Ridley others in their forecited passages against Altars together with D. Rainold in his Conference with Hart p. 8. Divis. 4. Bishop Morton in his Protest appeale l. 2. c. 6. sect 2. p. 164. Francis de Croy his first Conformity c. 24. M. Peter Smart in his Sermon at Durham July 27. 1628. David Dickson his explination upon the Epistle to the Hebrewes 2. 7. v. 13. 14. p. 126. 127. and c. 13. v. 10. p. 317. 318. yea and the Statute of 3. Jacobi c 5. which authorizeth Justices of Peace Majors Bailifs other cheife Officers of Cities and Townes Corporate in their Liberties from time to time to search the houses and Lodgings of every Popish recusant convict for Popish Bookes and Reliques of Popery and that if any Altar Pix Beades Pictures or such like Popish Reliques or any Popish Booke or Bookes shall be found in their or any of their custody they shal be presently defaced and burnt which Act expresly defines Altars as well as Beades and Pictures to be meere Reliques of Popery fit to be demolished all which have with one unanimous voyce condemned Altars as Heathenish Jewish Popish abolished by Christs death contrary to his institution the practise of the Apostles and Primative Church and unmeet to be used or tollerated among Christians resolving likewise in expresse Termes that Communion Tables are no Altars nor yet to be so stiled And so by consequence not to be placed Altarwise as the objectors pretend they ought to be because they falsly stile and deeme them Altars If any here object First that Communion Tables are Altars because D. John Pocklington in his Sunday no Sabbath printed and reprinted with License under M. Brayes the Archbishop of Canterburies Chaplings owne hand London 1636. Edir 1. p. 43. averrs that the Table of the Lord is called an Altar 1. Cor. 8. 13. They that waite of the Altar are partakers of the Altar which is not to be understood of Israell after the flesh for habemus Altare we also under the Gosple have an Altar Heb. 15. 10. And because the late Coale from the Altar Concludes from Heb. 13. 10. that the Lords Table is an Altar and may be so tearmed To this I answer first that this great over confident Doctor shewes himselfe a very Ignoramus in the quotations If not a Papist in his expositions of both these Texts which it seemes he never looked on in the Bible for he quotes the 1. Cor. 8. 13. for c. 9. 13. Heb. 15. 10. for 13. 10. there being not 15. but only 13. Chapters in that Epistle and he who is so ignorant in the Scriptures as thus to misquote misprinte these texts no wonder if he mistake their proper sence and meaning 2. I answer that it is most cleare that the first Text of the two namly 1. Cor. 9. 13. Doe ye not know that they which Minister about holy things live of the things of the Temple and they which waite AT not of the Altar as he reades it are partakers with the Altar is meant only of the Aaronicall Preistes Levites and Iewish Altars not of Christs Ministers and Lords Tables First Because the things of the Temples and Altars which were placed in the body or Court of the Jewish temple there beeing no Altar in any of the Synagoges are here couplâ—d together and the Text of Deut. 18. 1. quoted to it in the margent of our last translated English Bibles of purpose to confute this blind Doctor instruct all men that this Text is meant of the Aaronicall Preist Levites under the Law not of the Ministers under the Gosple as all Expositors whatsoever both old and new interpret it 2. Because the Apostle expresly resolves it so past all dispute in the next ensuing words v. 14. Even so hath the Lord
spirituall Altar Whereby as they conclude that we have not a Common Table or prophane Communion board to eate meere bread upon but a very Altar in the proper sence to sacrifice Christ body upon so for profe hereof they adde that in respect of the sayd body sacrificed it is also called an Altar of the Fathers even of Gregorie Nazianzene Chrysostome Socrates Augustine and Theophylact. And when it is called a Table it is in respect of the Heavenly food of Christs body bloud received Rainolds The note of your Rhemists about the Greeke Hebrew word is true I grant yet foolish too though true in the thing yet foolish in the drift For to the intent that where the Apostle sayth we have an Altar it may be thought he meant not that word spiritually or in a figurative sence as we expound it of Christ but materially of a very Altar such as is used in their Masses they say that the Greeke word thusiasterion as also the Hebrew answering mizbbeach thereunto in the old Testam signifieth properly an Altar to sacrifice on and not a metaphoricall spirituall Altar Which speech how dull it is in respect of the point to which they apply it I will make you see by an example of their owne Our Saviour in the Gospell teacheth of himselfe that he is the true bread which giveth life unto the world the bread which came downe from Heaven that whosoever eateth of it should not die if any man eate of this bread he shall live for ever John 6. v. 61. 33. 50. 51. Your Rhemists in their Annotat. on John 6. 32. doe note thereon that the person of Christ incarnate is meant under the metaphore of bread our beleefe in him is signified by eating Wherein they say well But if a man should tell them that the Greeke word artos as also the Hebrew lechem answering thereunto in the Old Testament doth properly signifie bread which we eat bodily not a metaphoricall or spirituall bread were not this as true a speech as their owne yet how wise to the purpose who is so blind that seeth not yea to goe no farther then the very word whereof by their Hebrew and Greeke they seeke advantage themselves upon that place of John Rev. 6. 9. that he saw under the Altar the soules of them who were killed for the word of God doe affirme expresly that Christ is this Altar Christ say they as man no doubt is this Altar They meane it I hope in a Metaphoricall or other figurative speech For they will not make him by transubstantiation to be an Altar properly yet here is it as true that the Greeke word thusiasterion as also the Hebrew mizebbah answering thereunto in the Old Testament signifieth properly an Altar to sacrifice on and not a Metaphoricall or spirituall Altar And if it were as much for the advantage of their cause to prove that Masse is sayd in Heaven as that in earth and that Christ is properly bread without a figure as that bread is properly Christ in the Sacrament the text of the Scripture where Christ is called bread yea the true bread would prove the one cleerly as they could fitt it with this note and the word Altar would put the other out of controversie cheifly if that were noted with all that an Angell stood before the Altar having a Golden Censer Rev. 8. 3. though others there also affirme the Altar to be Christ. But it fareth with your Rhemists as it is wont vvith false Prophets Ezek. 13. 10. one buildeth up a muddie vval and others daube it over with a rotten plaister and when a storme cometh the wall falleth plaister with it For though as they lay it on it seemeth hansome that vvords signifie properly the naturall things which they are used to signifie not metaphoricall or spirituall things yet if it be opened that heerby is meant that vvords may not be used by metaphors or other figures to signifie those things vvhich properly they doe not signifie the boyes in grammer Schooles who know not vvhat a Metaphore is will laugh at it Wherfore this plaister vvill not helpe the vveaknes of your muddie wall I mean of the Conclusion vvhich you vvould prove it by doe infer upon it that vve have an Altar in the proper sence to Sacrifice Christes body upon In the daubing up whereof yet your plaisterers doe shew a peece of greater Art partly by drawing us into hatred vvho have not Popish Altars but Communion Tables partly by vvinding the names of Fathers in as if they made for you against us Both vvith skill and cunning but more of Sophistrie then divinity 1. Cor. 10. 21. For that vvhich the Scripture doth call the Lords Table because it is ordained for the Lords Supper 1. Cor. 11. 20. in the administration of the blessed Sacrament of the body blood The Fathers also call it a Table in respect of the Heavenly banket that is served upon it And this improper sence Marrie by a figure of speech by vvhich the names of things that are like one another in some quality are given one unto another as Christ is called David Ezek. 34. 23. John Baptist Elias Mal. 4. 5. the Citty of Rome Babylon Rev. 17. 5. the Church of God Jerusalem Isay 62. 9. the Fathers for resemblance of his Ministers Sacraments in the New Testament to them in the Old are wont to give the name as of Preistes Levites to Pastours Deacons so of a Sacrifice to the Lords Supper and of an Altar to the Lords Table For these thinges are linked by nature in relation mutuall dependence as I may say one of another the Altar the Sacrifice the Sacrificers who serve the Altar that is Preistes and Levites Wherfore if the Fathers meant a very Altar in the proper sence to Sacrifice Christs body upon then must they meane also the Leviticall Preist-hood to serve in sacrificing of it But the Leviticall Preist-hood is gone Heb. 7. 11. they knew it neither did they call the ministrie of the Gospell so but by a figure Your Rhemists therfore doe abuse them in proving as by them that the Communion Table is called an Altar properly But us of the other side they doe abuse more by setting an Altar against a Common Table in such sort of speech as if we whose Churches have not a very Altar to kill our Saviour Christ sacrifice him upon it â—ad but a Common Table and prophane Communion board to eate meere bread upon A feate to make us odious in the eyes of men whom you would perswade that we discerne not the body of the Lord. Which your privy slander doth us open injury For we have not a Common but a Holy Table as both we call it esteem it not a prophane Communion board but the Lords Supper 1. Cor. 10. 16. 11. 23. wherein we receive the bread of
of these ordinances 2. The Fathers and primative Christians for at least 230. yeares after Christ had no Altars of which more before therfore not the name of Altars or of the Sacrament of the Altar 3. The Fathers usually and properly stile the Communion Table the Lords table the Holy table the Table c. and the Sacrament iâ—selfe the Lords Supper the Sacrament of Christs body and blood the Eucharist and the like that properly and those who phrase the Table an Altar or the Sacrament the Sacrament of the Altar doe it only improperly and figuratively as they stile faith and our hearts the Altar of a Christian either in relation to Christ himselfe who is our only true Altar whose body blood death are my stically represented to us in this Sacrament or in respect the Sacrifice of his body for us on the Altar of the Crosse is here spiritually exhibited or by reason of the spirituall Sacrifices of prayer and prayse and oblations of Charity for the poores releife that are there offred up when the Sacrament is received or because it puts us in mind of Christ our Altar in Heaven who must consecrate all our Services Sacrifices spirituall oblations make them acceptable to his Father In these regards only as some of our Martyrs Bishop Jewell D. Fulke D. Reynolds M. Deane Nowell D. Willet and M. Cartwright observe the Fathers sometime stile the Lords Table an Altar or out of an allusion to the Jewish Altars and oblations which were but types of Christ and his sacrifice on the Crosse here represented to us but never truly or properly Therfore their Antiquities prove it not to be an Altar nor yet the Sacrament to be the Sacrament of the Altar or that it may properly be so termed 4. Though the Fathers phrase the Communion Table an Altar or the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar yet this is no argument that we may now lawfully doe it or that they did well in it For when they used this manner of speech the Sacrifice of the Masse Masse-Preists with other idolatâ—ous popish trash was not knowne nor heard in the world neither were there any to be scandalized with those phrases or to wrest them to such ill ends purposes as since they have been There were then no Papists to be hardned encouraged in their popish Superstition no Protestants to be scandalized or drawen to dreame of Masse and Masse Preists againe as now there are Therfore they prochance might lawfully use these termes though we may not And yet these termes speeches of the Fathers the Papists have formerly derived and still defend justify all the abominations of their Masse their altars Masse Preistes massing vestments Cringes Ceremonies which shewes that the Fathers might have better spared then used them since all this hurt but no good at all hath proceeded from them if we should now after so long a discontinuance disuse of these Titles and our exploding of them as savouring to much of Popery and Iudaisme and tending to foment them should reassume them it would not only harden the Papists in all their idolatries errors superstitions concerning the Masse and altars wherein they differ for Protestants but likewise cause many to revolt from our religion unto Popery and others scandalized with these termes either wholly to seperate from our Church as false superstitious Popish or else to continue in it with wounded troubled scrupulous coÌ„sciences dejected discontented spirits drive them almost cleane away from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper as late experience to apparantly manifests So that this fiâ—â—t reason is of no great moment to prove what is objected To the second and maine reason I answer 1. That the Statute of 2. Ed. 6. was made in the very infancie of reformation whence M. Rastall in his Abridgment of Statutes annexeth this observation to it But note the time of the first making of this Statute which was before that the Masse taken away when the opinion of the reall presence was dot removed from us The language therfore of this Act made thus before the Masse was taken away or the grosse opinion of Transubstantiation removed from us is not much to be regarded much lesse insisted on though the Coale from the Altar doth principally relie upon it 2. I answer that this Act doth not call the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar nor the Lords table an Altar but rather the contrary For the Tittle of it is this An Act against such persons as shall unreverently speake against the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ commonly called the Sacrament of the Altar c. And the body of the Act runs thus As in the most comfortable Sacrament of the body and blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ commonly called the Sacrament of the Altar and in Scripture marke it THE SVPPER AND TABLE OF THE LORD THE COMMVNION AND PARTAKING OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST c. So that the name which the Statute gives it is only the Sacrament used 8. times together in this Act and the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ thus so stiled and this clause commonly called the Sacrament of the Altar is not a Title given it by the Statute but by the Preistes and vulgar people who then usually called it so and added only by way of explanation as their usuall terme not the Parleaments and being omitted in the ensuing parts clauses of this Act which termes the Sacrament the Sacrament of Christes body and blood with out this terme of explination which this Act expresly declares to be no Title given it in or by the Scripture which ever calls it the Supper and Table of the Lord the Communion and partaking of the body and blood of Christ but only by the vulgar who were then either for the most part Papists or Popishly affected neither Masse nor Transubstantiation nor Altars being then abolished as they were shortly after 3. This Act calls not the Communion Table an Altar the sole thing now in question but the Table of the Lord therfore it makes nothing for Altars or the stiling of the Communion Table an Altar 4. No Act either in King Edwards Raigne or Queen Elizabeths or since her dayes this alone excepted calls the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar but only the Sacrament the Holy Sacrament c. this Title therfore being omitted in all other Acts mentioned here as the phrase of the vulgar not the Parleaments and used only in the Statute of 1. Mar. Parl. 1. c. 3. when Masse and Altars were againe set up and revived but in no other Act of any of our Protestant Princes but this can be no plea at all for us now to call the Lords Table an Altar or his Supper the Sacrament of the Altar but rather argues the contrary that we should for beare to stile them thus because the Parleament in
expressions only retained The names therfore of Altar and Sacrament of the Altar being thus particularly purposely professedly damned expunged out of the Booke of Common Prayer by the whole Church of England in two severall Acts of Parleament under two most religious Princes never thought meet to be used or reinserted since is a most convincing retirated parleamentary resolution that the Communion Table is not an Altar much lesse an High Altar as some now phrase it that the Lords Table ought not to be stiled an Altar nor the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar else why should these Titles be thus exploded and that no Orthodox member of the Church of England ought to stile them thus much lesse to write plead in defence of these their Titles as these new Champions doe but to call them by those proper names which the Scripture the Common Prayer Booke these two statutes give them To the 4. reason I answer First that neither of all the Martyrs quoted in the Coale p. 14. 15. 16. doth call either the Lords Table an Altar or the Sament the Sacrament of the Altar True it is Bishop Latimer sayth that the Doctours call the Lords Table an Altar in many places in a figurative and improper sence Bishop Ridley in answer to that place that Bishop White objected out of Cyrill sayth that S. Cyrill meaneth by this word Altar not the Jewish Altar but the Table of the Lord but themselves never call it an Altar but a Table only they being so farre from it that Bishop Ridley writ a speciall Booke de Confringendis Altaribus and he and Bishop Latimer had a chiefe hand both in casting Altars out of our Churches and Chapples in expunging the very name of them out of the Common Prayer Booke Neither of the other Martyrs so much as mention the Altar in the words there â—ited M. Philpot expreâ—â—ly resolves that the Altar meant by Heb. 13. 10. is not the Communion Table or materiall Altar but Christ himselfe And as they stile not the Communion Table an Altar so not the Lords supper the Sacrament of the Altar For John Fryth only sayth they examined me touching the Sacrament of the Altar the terme his persecuting Examiners gave it not he who mentions it as their Interrogatorie not his answer So John Lamberts words I make yow the same Answer that I have done unto the Sacrament of the Altar relates to his adversaries Articles which so stiled it not to his owne voluntarie answer which must be made of and according to the question demanded M. Philpot only sayth that the old writers doe sometimes call the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ among other names which they ascribe thereunto the Sacrament of the Altar but he calls it not so himselfe Archbishop Crammer in Henry the 8 dayes before he was thorougly resolved against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation of which he was at first an over earnest defender as himselfe confessed at last Take no offence at the terme of Sacrament of the Altar but afterwards he did not using it in his writings and so farre was he sâ—em calling the Communion Table an Altar that he was the cheife agent in casting ouâ— Altars and expunging the very name of Altar out of the Common Prayer Booke his name being subscribed to the Letter to Bishop Ridley for the removing of Altars and setting up Tables in their places and the 6. reasons why the Lords Board should rather be after the forme of a Table then of an Altar condemning both Altars and their very name in some sort sent to Bishop Ridley which that Letter being approved if not compiled by him So that all these Reasons authorities wherewith the Coale from the Altar is principally kindled and enâ—lamed are now quite extinguished upon â—â—â—full examination neither prove that the Communion Table is an Altar or may be so stiled or that the Lords Supper is or may be phrased the Sacrament of the Altar but the contrary Since therfore it is evident by all these authorities and reasons notwithstanding these Objections that the Communion Table is no Altar and that the Church State and writers of England have abandoned all Altars and their very name together with them by which Altars as Philippus Eilbrachius writes in his Epanorthosis viae Compendariae Neomagi 1633. c. 18. p. 143. sect 7. the Crosse of Christ is overturned and therfore they are to be taken away the Orthodox Churches doing well in removing them and restoring Tables at which the Papistes themselves dare not deny but that Christ and his Apostles after him used to Celebrate his Supper The objection fals quite to ground and I may thus invertit Communion Tables are no Altars neither ought they to be stiled or reputed Altars Therfore they ought not to be placed Altar-wise against the East end of the Quire in such manner as the late Popish Altars as is pretended stood But admit Communion Tables to be Altars then it will hence necessarily followâ— that they ought to stand in the middest of the Church or Quire because Altars anciently ever stood so bâ—th among the Jewes Gentiles Pagon Greekes Romans and Christians to as I have largely manifested Thus they stood in Durands time Anno 1320. even in Popish Churches thus were they situated in ancient times in all the Greeke Churches and so are they yet placed at this very day as Bishop Jewell hath proved out of Durandus Gentianus Herveticus and other Authors Yea thus have some Altars stood heretofore in England For the Altar of Carmarthen was placed in the body of the Church Erkenwalde the 4. Bishop of London was layd in a sumptuous shrine in the East part of Paules above the High Altar and some other of our Bishops have been buried above the High Altar Therfore it stood not at the very East end of the Church and these Prelates were very presumptuous in taking the wall of the High Altar and setting their very Tombes and rotten Carcases above Christs mercy seat and Chaire of Estate 〈…〉 of their present successors may be credited who as they will have no â—eaâ—es at the upper end of the Chancle for feare any man should sit above Christ or chekmate with God almighty some thinkes they should suffer no shrines or Tombes especially of Bishops who should give good example of humility to others to be there erected for feare any mans rotten carcase should lie inshrined above them If then our Tables must be situated as all or most Altars anciently have been till with in these few yeares they must then be placed in the middest of the Quire or Chancell because Altars have there been usually placed as the premises abundantly evidence And these ensuing Testimonies will proveâ— lexondâ— control Sigismund the Monke in his Chronicon Augustinum scholasticum Anno 1483. pars 1. c. 1. records That in the ancient Cathedrall Church of
Augusta dedicated to S. Afra there were two Quiers in which were two Altars standing under two arches at the lower end of the Quire under the rayles which divided it from the body of the Church two Crucifixes and under them two Altars contening the Eucharist for the people Moreover in the body of the Church there were 4. Altars the first cheife of them was the Altar of S. Dionys Versus Occidentem in parte septentrionali non juxta murum SED QUASI IN MEDIO that stood towards the West not East in the North part not close by the wall but as it were in MIDDEST Thus was the Altar of S. Mary placed in Rome so that in the great inundation of Tiber in the dayes of Pope Nicholas the 3. the water ROTUNDE quatuor pedibus c. went round about it from foot high and more Anastasius writes of Popâ— Theodorus that Pyrrhus Patriarck of Constantinople comming to Rome in his time about the yeare of our Lord 646. Fecit ei Cathedram poni juxta Altare he caused a chaire to be placed for him hard by the Altar honoring him as the Preist of the royall City Either therfore the Altar in those dayes stood neere the West end of the Quire where the Bishops chaires and Seates now generally are placed or in the midst of the Quire or else Bâ—shops then usually sate at the East end of the Quire cheeke by will with the Altar where our Prelates will suffer no seates at all to stand for feare any should sitt above or in equipage with God Almighty The same Author relates that Pope Sergius about the yeare of our Lord 694. made a fowersquare vayle about the Altar in S. Peters Church having 4. white Curtaines and 4. scarlet ones IN CIRCUITU ALTARIS round about the Altar two of each side the Altar therefore stood not against the wall but some distance from it else this travarse or vayle of Curtaines could not inviron it round about In the great Cathedrall Church of Rome itselfe whence these Romanizers would seeme to take their paterne the Altar Anno Dom. 1547. even on Christmas day as William Thomas an eye-witnes in his History of Italy Thomas Becon vol. 3. f. 282. out of him report when the Pope himselfe and all the Cardinalls received the Sacrament STOOD IN THE MIDDEST of the Chaple or Quire upon every way and the Pope being brought behind or above it as our Prelates terme it was there in a Throne of wonderfull Majesty set up as a God sitting above Christ and God almighty himselfe by our Novellers Prelates language in which manner the Altar stood there long before yet continues scituated as I am informed And in S. Peters Church at Rome as D. Andrew Board an eye-witnes to in Cardinall Wolsies dayes in his Booke of the Abuses of Rome M. Thomas Becon out of him vol. 3. f. 281. relate the Sacrament Altar are both in a Chapple not in the East but Northside of the Church and S. Peter and S. Paul lie interred in a Chapple under an old Altar at the very lower part or end of the Church not the upper If Altars therfore even in the very Cathedralls of Rome itselfe are thus seated in the middest of the Chapple or Quire in the North not East end yea at the very lower part and end not East or upper end of the Churchesâ— Our Roman Novellers have no ground or Couler at all left them for their Eastâ—rly situation of Altars or Tables with one side against the wall or to place them at the upper end of the Church or Quire as they call it since the old Altar under which S. Peter Paul lie buried at which the Romanists affirme they consecrated the Sacrament and sayd Masse stand thus at the lower part or end of the Church the Preists Prelates aâ—d people taking the upper hand thereof and sitting above it as the Pope himselfe doth above the High Altar The 3. objection is this The Jewes and Pagans Altars stood in the middest of their Quiers and Temples Therfore Christians Altars and Communion Tables ought to stand at the East-end Altar-wise against the wall as now they are placed I answer 1. That this is a mad consequence For if we will imitate the Iewes and Gentiles in setting up Altars then we have cause to imitate them in the forme and situation of our Altars if we will reject the latter as Iewâ—sh heathenish much more Altars themselves as more Iewish and heathenish then their sit us 2. I answer That the argument is a meere Nonsequitur For admit we ought not to imitate neither Iewes or Getiles in situating our Altars or Communion Tables in the middest as they did yet will it follow Ergo we must place them against the East-wall or end of the Church or Chauncell Certainely Ergo we should place them at the West North or South-side of the Church or Quire is as good a consequent 3. Our Novellers will needes imitate the Gentiles Jewes in their Sanctum Sanctorums Mercie-Seates Copes Miters Aaronicall attires vestments Organs Singing-men a world of Jewish and Heathenish Ceremonies Orders Pastimes Festivals Consecrations why not then in the standing of their Altars having no Divine Prohibition to hinder them in this particular as they have in all or most of the others 4. The Altars of the Iewes were placed in the middest of the Tabernacle Temple Court of the Temples by diuine institution direction so situated in pagan Temples by the very dictate of Common reason as the most vsefull â—itting and deâ—ent scituation therfore Christians should rather imitate then directly thwart them in this particular having both Gods institution and right rectified reason to induce them thus to doe The 4. objection is this The Communion Tables in all Cathedrall Churces and in al his Majesteyes Chapples are so situated where Ecclesiasticall discipline is best observed therfore they ought there to be placed in all other Chapples I answer 1. but I know not neither doe I beleiue the Axtecedent to be true for certaine I am that in many Cathedrals with in these few yeares by name in the Cathedrall of Salisbury Winchester Exeter Bristol Worcester Carlile and others the Communion Table stood East West a good distance from the wall not Altarwise against it with in the memory of some men yet aliue it stood so in all Cathedrals of England in all or most of the Kings Chapples If they haue been otherwyse situate of late yeares as the Tables in many Churches haue been contrary to Law it is but an innouation introduced by some violeÌ„t Innouators without any Lawfull authority for what end all England sees and knowes to well So as I may truly thus retort the argument that the Tables in Cathedrall Churches and the Kings Chapples stood not Altarwise but Tabllewise till now of late dayes when their
of her Commissioners in causes Eclesiasticall or of the Metropolitane of this Realme ordaine or publish such further Ceremonies or Rites as may be most for the advancement of Gods glory the edyfying of his Church and the due reverence of Christs Holy mysteries and Sacraments A power not personal sayth the Coale to the Queen only when shee was alone but such as was to be continued also unto her Successors So that in case the Common-prayer Booke had determined positively that the Table shoule be placed at all times in the vale of the Church or Chauncel which is not determined of or that the Ordinary by his owne oppointment could not have otherwise appointe which yet is not so the Kings most excellent Majesteye on information of the irreverent usage of the holy Table by all sorts of people as it hath been accustomed in these later dayes in sitting on it in time of Sermon otherwise prophanely abusing it in taking Accounts making Rates such like businesses may by the last clause of the side for the due reverence of Christs holy mysteries Sacraments with the advise Counsel of the Metropolitane comaund it to be placed where the Altar stood to be railed about for the greater decency To this I answer first That a possead Esse non valet consequentia The Kingh by virtue of this Act by the advise of the Metropolitanne may commaund the Table to be placed where the Altar stood there rayled in Ergo it ought there to be placed railed in before or without the Kings Commaund is no good Argument yea the contrary holds good The Table ought not so to beplaced or railed in but by his Magesteyes expresse Commaund that by some publike Act and writing under his great Seale as is evident by Queen Elizabeths Injunctions the Booke of Orders Anno 1561. the Booke of Advertissements Anno 1565 with the Statute of 25. H 8. â— 19. the King being to Cammand nothing of this nature to all his Subjects but by matter of Record under his great Seale as all his Proclamations writs doe testify But his Majesteye hath yet given noe such expresse commaund by any publike Act or writing under his great Seale Therfore it ought not to be done 2. This branch of the Statute takes away all power from the Metropolitane Prelates Ordinaries to ordaine or publish any new Rites or Ceremonies what soever oâ— to alter any formerly prescribed or established vesting this power only in the Queens Majesteyes her Commissioners Metrapolitane being only to advise her in cause she require their advise but not to doe any thing them selves in their owne names either with or with our the Queenes advise they being as some say in a Premunire if they doe it by the State of 25. H. 8. c. 19. compared with 27. H. 8. c. 15. 35. H. 8. c 16. 3. 4. Edâ— 6 c. 11. his Majesteyes and the Bishops owne resolution in the Declaration before the 39 Articles of Religion reprinted by his Majesteyes speciall Commaund London 1628. By what right or power then I pray with what great affront to his Majesteyes Prerogrative Royall can or doe our Arch-Bishops Bishops Arch-Deacons Ordinaries officials in their severall visitations take upon them to prescribe new rites Ceremonies of their owne devising to print pubblish them in their owne names without any Commission from his Majesteyes in their visitation Articles to injoyne Ministers Church-wardens Sidemen to submit unto them suspending questioning excommunicating them in case they refuse to doe it when as them selves for making they for submitting to any such Rites Ceremonies or Constitutions are ipso facto excommunicated by the 12. Canon made in Convocation Anno 1603 By what right or authority doe they now set up Altars insteed of Tables order give in charge in printed Articles that Communion Tables shal be changed removed sett Altarwise against the East end of the the Chauncel there rayled in that the Ministers shall bow cring unto them administer the Sacrament yea read the 2. service as they call it at the Table even when there is no Sacrament that all the Communicants shall come up to receive that all men shall stand up at Gloria Patri the Gosple Athanasius the Nicene Creed bow at every naming of Iesus Woemen to be Churched with vayles not without things no wayes prescribed by the Booke of Comon prayer or Commaunded by his Mayestey under the great Seale suspending silencing depriving excommunicating Ministers and vexing his Mayesteyes subjects severall wayes for not submitting to these their Novell Articles Injunctions being all Derogatorie to his Majesteyes Ecclesiasticall Prerogative contrary to this objected clause of the Statute and to the first clause thereof which enacts That no manner of Parson vicar or other Minister what soever shall wilfully or obstinately standing in the same use or by open fact deed or thenreatning compell cause procure or maintaine any person vicar or other Minister in any Cathedrall or parrish Church or Chapple to use ANY OTHER RITE CEREMONY ORDER FORME OR MANNER of celebrating the Lords Supper Mattens Evening song Administration of the Sacraments then is mentioned and sett forth in the Booke of Common Prayer and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England under the penalties therein expressed which Booke neither prescribes nor mentions all or any of these Nouell Rites Ceremonies The Coalier therfore might well have fâ—â—o ne this objection which fals so heavy upon him these Prelates which set him no worke to blow a brode his Coale from the Altar to kindle a combustion in our Church 3. I answer that this clause is meerly personall to the Queen because she and her Commissioners only is named in it not her Heires Successors their Commissioners that for two reasons First for the Parleament then knew her syncerity love to Religion and her desire to aduance it of which she had given good Testimonie all King Edward the 6. time but especially in Queen Maries dayes therfore they would trust her with such a power But they then knew not neither could they divine who might chance to be her Heyre or Successor to the Crowne nor what they might prove in point of Religion Therfore they would not adventure to intrust them with such an authority who might peraduenture overturne the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church with the due use reverence of Christe holy misteries Sacraments formerly setled by this Act the Booke of Common prayer by vertue or coulor of this clause without a Parliament but limited it only to the Queen 2. Because the Booke of Common Prayer administration of the Sacrament other Rites Ceremonies of the Church of England being then but newly corrected published there might there upon as comonly it fals out upon all Alterations grow some questions doubts inconveniences about it or
prescribe any new Rites Ceremonies or visitation 〈◊〉 Articles in their owne names by their owne power as they most presumptuously doe in all places euery day without any leaue first obtained from his Mayestey vnder his bread Seale so to doe or to publish give them in charge impose them on his Subjects without his Majesteyes approvation asleht thereto his broad Seale likewise 3. That the Clergie in Conuocation much lesse then any Bishop in his Diocesse can order or determine nothing no not by his Mayesteyes licence approbation vnder his broad Seale that can binde the Subjects or inferior Clergie in case it be contrary to the Lawes and Customes of the Realme But Articles Bishops Constitutions for the Turning of Communion Tables into Altars rayling them in Altarwise with other for enamed particulars are contrary to the Lawes of the Realme to the Customes of it from the 10. of Queen Elizabeth till now sufficient to make two successive prescriptions at the Citull Canon Law neither were this made by the Clergie in Conuocation by his Mayesteyes licence assent vnder his Seale but by the Bishops Arch-deucons their officers themselves without any such royall license or assent Therefore they are meerly voyd neither doe nor ought to binde his Mayesteyes Subjects or the inferior Clergie 4. That his Majestey will never authorize or assent vnto any thing propounded to him by his Bishops or Clergie no not in Conuocation but what shall concerne the setled continuance of the established Doctrine Discipline of the Church of England but the Turning of Communion Tables in to Altars the rayling of them in Altarwise c. Do not concerne the setled continuance of the established Doctrine Discipline of the Church of England but tend to the seâ—ret vndermining discontinuance of them Therefore his Mayestey hath not authorized nor assented to these Innouations 5. That his Majestey will not endure any varying or departing in the least Degree from the setled established Doctrine Discipline of the Church of England Therefore he will not endure that his Bishops who were priuy to this his Royall Declaration made by their owne advice should vary depart from both in setting vp Altars in steed of Lords Tables in Terming the Lords Table an Altar high Altar his Supper the Sacrament of the Altar in rayling in Communion Tables Altar-wise their forcing the Ministers to consecrate the people to receiue or in prescibing any other new Popish Rites and Ceremonies Much lesse wil he endure that they should affirme both by word mouth printed Bookes authorized by their Chaplaines that all these things are done with his approbation by his priuate direction Commaund but will one day call them and these erronious superstitious Popish writers to an account for these their andacious contumelies affronts in contempt of his Lawes and Declarations of purpose to alienate the hearts affections of his faithfull loyall subjects from him to countenance further their owne Romish designes to vndermine religion vsher in Poper by degrees which hath now well nigh wound in not only its head rayle but almost its intire body into our Church by these their treacherous disloyall practises proceedings Innouations All which considered the Councell Table order for St. Gregorius Tables seituation will stand the Bishops the Colier in no steed at all and the nameles Author of the Coale from the Altar with other popish Scriblers may justly feare that his Majestey for those vntriuthes false Rumors raysed vp publikely printed of him as if he were the cheife Patron Author Directâ—r of all those late Romish Nouclties Rites Ceremonies which haue either secretly crept or vyolently in truded themselves into our Church contrary to his Lawes Declarations will give them no great thankes or reward but inflict an heauy censure on them and make them their abesters sing a publike Palinodie suitable to these his Royall Declarations published by his speciall Commaund from whence his justice honor piety constancy will neuer doubtles suffer him to receed in the least degree I haue now through Gods assistance runne over blowen out and quite extinguished as I suppose the Coale from the Altar or rather from Mr. Samuel Bakers Ouen which was like to sets our Churchon fire what euer the nameles Author of this Treatise who vpon examination proves neither learned nor indicious if a Divine as the Title stiles him or Mr. Shelford Doctor Pocklington or Edmond Reeue haue lately written or objected in defence of Altars or placing rayling in Communion Tables Altar-wise talking of those idle glosses false Cauils they haue made to elude the Authorities and Antiquities which Bishop Iewel and Dr. Williams Bishop of Lincolne in his Letter to the vicar of Grantham for he is certainly knowen to be the Author of it and hath auowed it haue produced against the Antiquity of Altars for the scituating of Tables in the midst of the Church and Quire all which I shall here prostrate to thy Christian Censure hauing done nothing in this argument out of vaine glory faction opposition or desire of victory over impotent Antigonists but out of a sincere affection to the truth that loyalty that duty endeared respect I beare both to my gracious Prince whose honor Constancy fidelity are interessed in this Controversie to the established Doctrine Discipline of the Church of England which these like so many secret Powder-traytors would sodainly blow vp subuert by their Romish Treatises desperate Innouations If I have fayled or erred in any particular as what man is free from these common infirmities of Mortality impute it not is the wilfulnes but weakenes of him who wil be more glad more ready to see correct his owne Ouersights then to lay open or Censure others if thou receive satisfaction from it as I hope thou will in some good measure in the things therein discussed give God the glory pray for me who as I am not afrayd to defend the truth in this Apostatizing faint hearted age when as it hath few Friends but feuer Patrons so I shall neither be ashamed to set my name to this Defence when the Author of the Coale from the Altar dares be so bold as subscribe his name to his Assayling firebrand which I here principally haue encountred with our owne domesticke writters Records And now good Reader I should here dismisse thee but that as the Coale concludes with the Councel-Table Order the Coppy of that Letter which it thought to burne to ashes so I shall close vp the first part of my Quench-Coale with a true Relation of the Manner forme not only of turning a Communion Table Altar-wise but likewise Dedicating a Communion Table to be an Altar in such a solemne manner as our age hath scarce heard the like The Historie whereof as it was acted I
the word Sacerdos denoting a sacrificing or massing Preist It is a Rule both in Philosophy Diuinitie Omnia agunt propter finem All things especially all Rationall agent aime at some vltimate vttermost or finall end in all their Actions Much more then in their serious writings Polemicall discourses We know againe that it is an vndoubted Maxime in the Schooles that finis causa finalis est primus in intentione vltimus in executione agentis The first thing in Intention of the agent though the lâ—st in execution And that Omnia med in sum et agunt propter finem all middle causes are and worke only to produce the end Et non sunt volita nisi propter finem These things being undoubted truths past all dispute And it being as true likewise that Altars themselves Preists being but instrument subordinate relatine things 〈◊〉 for some other vse the â—â—nation of Tables Altarwise being but â— ceremony the vtmost end or final cause therof being of themselves since none is so simple to ses vp an Altar only because he would have an Altar or to turne the Lords Table Altar-wise only because he desires it should be so plated or to style himselfe affoctedly a Priest only for the Titles sake no more but for some further end all these serving to no vse or purpose at all simplie considered but only with relation to some further end The sole Question then wil be what this end should be To which if our Innouators late Colliar would giue a direct Answer in down right English termes it can be no other but this That the end they strive for in contending for Altars Priests turning Tables Altarwise is only to vsher in a Sacrifice into our Church since Cardinall Bellarmine B. Morton in his Institution of the Sacrament twice printed of late l. 6. c. 5. sect 15. p. 46. expresly resolve That Preists Altar Sacrifice are relatives haue mutuall vnseperable dependance one on the other since there can be no other use of these but only for sacrifice as both the scriptures and the Papists acknowledge the Coale ingenuously confesseth p. 8. 14. 15. 16. But what sacrifice is this Certainly that sacrifice which may now be brought into our Church can be no other but that which formerly vpon the beginning of reformation was cast out but that sacrifice was only the Idololaâ—rous Popish sacrifice of the Masle Therefore this certainly is the Sacrifice they would bring in againe by these Altars Preists Communion Tables seated Altarwise If they reply that they doe it only for the more decent celebration of the Lords Supper I answer that a Table is farre more decent for such â— purpose then an Altar a Table posture then an Altar situation a Minister then a Preist since we neuer read in scripture of any supper or eating at an Altar since Christ himself instituted the Supper at a Table which Table if we believe the Cronickleâ— of Flaunders Gharles the Emperor Anno 1350. remoued from Noremberge to Prague as most precious relique which the Church of Rome flath yet to shew if you dare belieue them though shee neuer consecrates the Sacrament 〈◊〉 it which me thinkes shee should then dve I but in an Altar 〈◊〉 at an Altar since we finde no mention in scripture of any Preists but only of Apostles and Ministers 〈◊〉 at this Table If they reply as the Coale doth that they 〈◊〉 only to him 〈◊〉 Commemoratue Sacrifice which our Church allowes not â— Prepitiatory as the Papists make their Masse I answer first that our Church allowes not so much as of a Commemoratiue Sacrifice neither doth shee in her Homilies or Articles stile the Sacrament of the Lords Supper so much lesse in her Common prayer Booke Injunctions Canons or statntes neither doth the Colier alledge one passage in any of all these to proue this bold assoueration either p. 8. or p. 15. 16. where like a beggerly Pedlar he layes open all his shrids stolen wares 2. The Church of England euen in that very homilie he cites p. 8. expresly condemnes this Commemroratory Sacrifice in these words Wee must take heed then saith the Homily least of a Memory it BE MADE A SACRIFICE If not A SACRIFICE then not a commemoratiue Sacrifice vnlesse they will grant a commemoratiue Sacrifice to be no Sacrifice which is a contradiction to say we must take heed least of the MEMORY we make it A SACRIFICE Is all one as to say wee must take heed that we make it not a commemoratiue Sacrifice a Memorie a Sacrifice being here put in direct opposition contradistinction one to an other in this clause in the following parts of the Homily which 4. seuerall times cals the Sacrament A MEMORY A COMMEMORATION AND OUTWARD TESTIMONY of Christs death but neuer a Sacrifice commemoratiue or Propitiatory Both which it expresly clubs downe in these words Now it followeth to haue with this knowledge a sure constant saith not only that the death of Christ is avay lable for a redemption of all the world c but also that he made vpon the Crosse A TRVE AND SVFFICIENT SACRIFICE for thee a perfect cleansing of thy sinns so that then acknowledge no other sauiour redeemer Mediator Advocat Intercessour but CHRIST ONLY Herein thou needest no other mans helpe NO OTHER SACRIFICE therfore neither commemoratiue 〈◊〉 propitiatory for this vniuerfull Negatiue includes both or 〈◊〉 NO SACRIFICING PREIST 〈◊〉 New Preistâ— observe this well to which they haue subscribed NO MASSE let those who labour might and maine to usher it into the Church by degrees consider this No meanes established by mans injunction Therefore no A tâ—r Preist Sacrifice or Table seated Altar-wise All which this homily strikes dead at once and our Common-Prayer-Booke and 39. Article too almost in the selflame words 3. A commemoratiue Sacrifice is a meere Bull and contradiction For as the picture of a man is no man or of fire no fire or of a Chalice or Sacrament no Câ—alice or Sacrament So the commemoration of Christ Sacrifice is in truth no Sacrifice nor kinde nor species of a Sacrifice but only a shadow or memoriall of a Sacrifice So that this is but a Mountebancks chear and distinction to delude children fooles with all not warranted by any Scripture or judicious Orthodox divine 4. The Sacrament neither is nor can be a sacrifice for every sacrifice whether legall or Euangelicall is a religious seruice holocast worship or 〈◊〉 offered up by men to God himselfe Numb 28. 2. 3. 4. Psal. 4. 5. Psal. 5â— 14. Psal. 66. 15. Mat. 3. 3. Rom. 12. 1. Hâ—b 9. 14. 5. 1. 7. Heb. 13. 15. 1 Pet. 2. 5. Whence the Booke of Common-prayer after the receiving of the Sacrament prescribes this Eucharisticall prayer And thus we offer present unto thee O Lord our selues our
sules bodies to be a reasonable holy livelie SACRIFICE unto thee But in the receiving of the bread and wine in the Sacrament we offer up nothing unto God but only God tenders his Sonne with all the benefits of his death and passion unto us As the words take rate this the prayers before and after the Sacrament the Scriptures and every mans experience withesseth Therefore it can by noe meanes be tearmed a Sacrifice Whence the Homille of the Sacrament tearms our thanksgiving to God after the SacrameÌ„t received and at other times a Sacrifice p. 103. as the Apostle expresly doth Heb 13. 15. the Psalmist before him Ps. 107. 22. Ps. 116. 17. Ps. 54. 6. Ier. 33. 11. Almos 4. 5. Ion. 2. 9. But never tearmes the Sacrament it selfe thus because it neither is nor can be a sacrifice commemorative or propitiatâ—rie unlesse with reference to this thanksgiving and to the whole act and service not to the consecrating and distributing of the bread and wine as B sh 〈◊〉 proves at large Instit. of the Sacram. l. 6. throughout 5. This Homily â— times together her case the Sacrament a Table Lords Table never a Sacrifice an Altar or Sacâ—â—ment of the Altar Admitt the Homilie granted it to be a Sacrifice which it doth not yet it is such a Sacrifice as needeth neither Preist Altar or Tables situated Altar-wise euen by the Homilie and Booke of Common-prayers resolution Therefore no such Romish Massing Sacrifice as these Innovators would obtrude by crast and power upon us which stands in need both of a Preist an Altar or Table placed Altar-wiseâ— or of the name of a Sacrifice to make people reasly to esteeme in so 6. Nemorepente for turpissimus 〈◊〉 Romish Novellers dare not discover themselves or proceed so farre at the first dash for feare of prevention and strong opp 〈◊〉 but they will usher in things by certaine insemble degrees step by step till they have brought in the whole body of Popery at last First then wee most haue Communion-Tables only turned Altar-wise Then wee must haue them termed Altars Next wee must sett up Altars indeed Then wee must cringe to and adore them after that haue a Preist to write on them then a commemorative sacrificrenly to bee off red on them And thus farre wee have already proceeded in many places AND GENERALL IN ALL COLLEGIATE AND CATHEDR ALL CHVRCHES as the Colier in formes his friend and â—eader both p. 1. and 27 The Ring-leaders and most 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 corrupt examples to reduce us backe to Rome that â—â—unded them And now must wee and Rome bee brought â—â—gether 〈…〉 as muthally to embrace and 〈◊〉 each other the next step must be to make the Sacrament a propiriatory sacrifice as the Papists doe who first proceeded â— this method and held it but commemorative as appeares by all their ancient Schoolemen And then when the thing itselfe is once gott inâ— the name of it â—yet too grosse and odioâ—â— will quickly follow it shall then be rebaptized with the name of Masse by these its Godfathers who as they have already pleaded for its Popish title The Sacrament of the Altar because the statute of 1. E. 6. c. 1. stiles it the Sacrament of the body blood of Christ commonly called to witt by the Papists in those dayes not the Parliament or Protestants The Sacrament of the Altar So they will by the selfesame reason call it by the name of the Masse and justify this Title of it by the Masse itselfe to be lawfully warranted both by Prince Pâ—â—late Preist the whole Parliament because the statute of a and 3. E. 6. c. 1. and the Booke of Common-prayer established by it there stiles it The holy Commâ—nion commonly called THE MASSE to witt by the Papists and ignorant people of those times the Masse being not quite abolished till this law was made Though the very intent of this Law was to abolish the Masse and the name of Masse 〈◊〉 is cleare by the body of the Act the Booke of the Commoâ—-prayer then sett out and since corrected the Homily of the worthy receiâ—ing of the Sacrament fore cited the 31. Articleâ— with all the surnamed writers Injunctions and Cannons of our Church and neither old Doting Shelford nor his soâ—â—e the Colier dare deny even as the end and true scope of the she statute of 1. E. 6. c. 1. was to abolish both the name 〈◊〉 Sacrament of the Altar Though thâ—se ignorant Scribâ—â—â— would justifie both the lawfullnes of Altars and of termâ—â— the Loâ—ds supper the Sacrament of the Altar from thâ—â—â— against the meaning of the Law as I have already â—â—â—fested Since therefore it is cleare by the Colier that the 〈◊〉 and their Confederates 〈◊〉 some notable designes in 〈◊〉 upon the established doctrine and discipline of the Churchâ— which he tearmes A GOOD WORKE J would it were so NOW IN HAND which wee finde too true and since this good worke is just like Coliers worke and Character by the printed yea his owne happy premunition truly ROMAN to witt by Altars and Preists and Tables turned Altarwise to usher in Masse with its Name and Sacrifice into our Church for which all things are now ready prepared in all Cathedrall Collegiate Churches It is high time for us to propound this first question to these domestick â—â—â—ialists what their intentions are to stoppe their further progresse both by a linely discovery and strenuous opposition of these their Antichristian Romish designes and to admonish them and all others in the words of our owne established Homily BEFORE ALL THINGS this wee must be sure of especially that this supper be in such wise done and ministred as our Lord and Saviour did and commanded it to be done as his holy Apostles used it and the godly Fathers in the primitive Church frequented it For as the worthy man S. Ambrose saith he is unworthy of the Lords Table that otherwise doth celebrate the Mystery then it was delivered by him Neither can he be devout that otherwise doth presume then it was giuen by the Author but when the Author gave it he gave it not a Sacrificing Shaveâ— Masse-Preist he gaue it not at an Altar but at a table and that situated in the MIDDEST table-wise as J haue manifested to his Disciples sitting not kneeling round about it Therefore we must be sure so to minister if we will be either worthy of the Lord or devout we must then take heed as it is now â—â—gh time so to doe it lest of the memory is be 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 lect of a Communion it be made a private eaâ—â—â—â—â— therefore of having our tables at the time of its celebration placed Altar-wise at the remotest East end of the Chanâ—â—â—â— brought in with private Masses for that purpose onely 〈◊〉 leâ—â—â— of two parts we have but one least applying it to the dead wee loose the fruite that be alive holâ—some counsell necessary
packing to Rome their mother or to some English Seminaries or Cloysters where they may say and sacrifice Maâ—â—e Sure our Homilies informe both them and us that we have no need of Masse or Sacrificing Preists neither yet thankes be to God have wee any Masses to be chaunted unlesse our Cathedrall divine service may be so tearmed which comes nearest Masse of any in our Parish Churches standing in need only of Preaching Ministers not Sacrificing Masse-Preists condemned by our statutes as direct Traytâ—rsâ— to our King and State And if those Jnnovators will-needes enroll themselves in this order of Preists I should not envy them the horne of a Tyburne â—ippert to grace their order and neckes with all nor yet the shaving of their Crownes to the very shoulders â—o use Father Latymers speeches â— which they well demerit in stead of that Egregâ—am verò laudem spolia ampla which pricke them on to asâ—ume this new title office of Preists and Preistshood QVESTION III. The third Question J shall propose to them and all our Prelates is this what Law Canon or ground they have for the Consecrating of Altars a Ceremony already begun at Wolverhampton as you have heard which will shortly creepe up by degrees in other places Or for Consecrating Churches Chappels or Churchyeards Statute I am certaine there is none for it yea sure I am that all the statutes against Mort. concerning divine service and Sacraments and the Booke of Common-prayers with divers of our learned Writers are against it To make this cleare in few wordes 1. First it is apparent that every Consecration of a Church Chappell or Church-yard makes a Mort This is the expresse resolution of the whole Parliament Realme in the Statute of 15. R. 2. c. 5. Rastal Mort. â— and 13. E. 1. c. 32. against Crosses But Mort are directly against the Lawes and Statutes of the Realme as appeares by Brook Fiz and Rastall in their Titles Mort Therefore these Consecrations are so too 2. Secondly they are expresly opposite to the Statutes of 2. and 3. E. 6. c. 1. 5. and 6. E. 6. c. 1. If these statutes with that of Jacâ— c. 5. were duely executed we should not have so many of those bookes in the Realme as now they are which are freely printed and sould openly in every Stationers shoppe 1. Eliz c. 2. 8. Eliz c. 1. and 3. and 4. E. 6. c. 10. 12. All which for the abandoning of all superstitious service and to take away all occasions of dive sity of opinions rites Ceremonies in our Church clearely and utterly abolish extinguish and forbid for ever to be used or kept in this Realme all bookes called Missals Breviaries Officials Manuals Processionals Legends Primers or other Bookes whatsoever heretofore used for service of the church written or printed in the English or Lattin tongue With all other manner of Rites Ceremonies divine service Consecrations or publike formes of prayer then such only as are mentioned and prescribed in the Booke of Common prayer and other rites aud Ceremonies of the Church of England and in the Booke of Ordination ratified by these Acts In neither of which is there one syllable or Title extant concerning the Consecration of Churches Chappels or Churchâ— yardes or Altars nor any forme of prayer prescribed for the purpose as there is both for the Administration of the Lords supper Baptisme whether publike or private Mariage Buriall of the Dead Churching of Women visitation of the sicke confirmation of Children Ordination of Deacons and Ministers Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops and â—ll other thinges our Church deemes lawfull or necessary Since therefore these statutes have professedly in direct tearmes abolislâ—e 〈◊〉 those Popish Books and Pâ—â—mers wherein the manner prayers and service for consecrating of Churches Chappels Church-yards or Altars are prescribed and established in their places the Booke of Common-prayer and Ordination of Ministers wherein there is not one syllable concerâ—ing any such consecrations nor any forme of prayer or service institâ—ted for all or either of them as there is for all other rites Ceremonies which our Church holds necessary And since they expresly prohibite all other Rites Ceremonies Formes of Prayer and Consecrations then such as are comprised and prescribed in thâ—se two Bookes It is infallable that they have utterly abolished and abrogated this Ceremony of Consecrating of Churches Church-yards Chappels and Altars as Iewish Popish Superstitious or at least superfluous and quite excluded it out of our Church As for our Canons Homilies Iâ—junctions and Articles of Religion there is not in all nor any one of them inferred â—re title concerning these Consecrations Which condemne and exclude them by their silence The Homilies likewise have some glances against them For our writers Mr. Tyndall in â—is obedience page 136. 152. of a Christian man William Wraâ—ghton in his hunting and Rescuing of the Romish Fox Iohn Bale B of Osyrus in Ireland in his Image of both Churches in sundry places Thomas Becon in his Reliques of Rome Mr. Calâ—r hill in his booke against Marshall Mr. Fox in his booke of Martyrs And many other of our writers haue expresly censured and deâ—â—ed those Consecrations as Superstitious Iewish Popish and Antichristian styling them conjuring rather then hallewing of Churches Chappels and Altars invâ—nted only for profiâ—â— and reserved only to Bishops for gaine sake And to name no more reverent Pilkirgâ—on seveaâ—ely censures these Consecrations in these ensewing wordes The Popes Church hath all things pleasant in it to deligâ—â— the people but where the Gospell is preached they knowing that God is not pleased but only with a pure heart they are conâ—ent with an honest place appointed to resort together in though it were never hallowed by Bishop at all It is written that God dwels not in Temples made with handes nor is worshipped with any worke of mans handes but he is a â—spirit an invisible substance and will be worshipped in spirit and truth not in outward wordes only of the â—ippe but with the deepe lighes and groanes of the heart and the whoâ—e power of the mind earnest hearty calling on him in prayer by faith And therefore he doth not so much require of us to build him an house of stone and timber but hath willed as to pray in all places and hath taken away that Iewish and Popish holinesse which is thought to be more in one place then in another All the Earth is the Lords and he is present in all places hearing the petitions of them that call upon him in faith Therefore those Bishops which thinke with their conjured water to make one place more holy then the rest are no better then the Iewes deceaving the people and teaching that only to be holy which they have censed crossed oyled and breathed upon For as Christ said to the woman thinking one place to be more holy to pray in then
Statutes of Mort c. In witnesse whereof c. Witnesse the King at Westminster the 1â— day of November in the 31. yeare of the reigne of King Henry the 8 c. Teripsum Regem From which Patent truely transcribed out of the Rolls where it it is in Lattine I observe First that the Arch-Bishops had then no Lawfull right 〈◊〉 power at all to consecrate Churches Chappels or Church-yeards without a speciall License from the King himselfe under his Great Seale Therefore by like reason not to keep Consistories Visitations inflict Ecclesiasticall Censures suspend or silence Ministers and the like without such a speciall grant or Licence And so their Episcopall jurisdiction not â—ure divino but meerly humane by the Kings grant and institution Secondly that after such a License given them by the King under his great Seale they cannot yea ought not by Law to consecrate any Church Chappel or Church-yeard without suing forth a specâ—all Patent out of the Chauncery under the Great Seale particularly and by name authorizing them with sufficient words and clauses to consecrate such such a Church Chappel or Church yeard in speciall much more then must they have the like speciall Patent and Commission to keep Courts Visitations suspend or silence Ministers and the like which Licenses and Commissions now they sue not out but goe on of their owne heads in and by their owne Episcopall authorities for the most part for which a Paemunire lies against them Thirdly that every consecration is and makes a Mortmaniâ— Therefore it is against the Law and must have a speciall License and warrant from the King under his Great Seale as this Patent prescribes Fourthly this Patent allowes neither the Bishops nor their Officers to take any fees at all for any such consecrations Therefore the fees they exact for them are meere extortions for which an Inditement or Bill lyeth in the Sta-chamber Fifthly they cannot inforce any man or Parish to have their Chappels Churches or Church-yeards consecrated unlesse themselves require and desire it may be done as some words in the Patent which for brevity sake I have omitted manifest and the words may nor shall consecrate implieth as much Sixtly that this gives them no power at all to consecrate Altars or Altar-clothes which have a distinct peculiar forme of Consecration but only Churches Chappels Church-yeards After this King Henry the â— in the 37 yeare of his reigne by his Letters Patents to the Bishop of Oxford among other things granted him power to proceed to the Consecration of Churches and Church-yeards within his Diâ—cesse Moreover without speciall grant from the King they had no such power For which cause it was then specially inserâ—eâ— into this and other Bishops Patents And thus long the Consecration of Churches with all other Popish Superstitions and Ceremonies almost continued in use But upon the change and reformation of religion which is worthy of observation iâ— quite vanished away as did many other Popish Superstitions by the abolishing of the Masseâ—Bookes Primers and Ceremonials which prescribed the manner and forme of Consecrating Churches Chapples and Church-yeardes by the Statutes of 2. 3. E. 6. c. 1. 3. 4. E. 6. c. 10. Whence I finde not in all the Patents made to Bishops in King Edwardâ— dayes by the provision of the statutes of 1. E. 6. c. 2 One syllable authorizing them to consecrate Churches Chapples or Church-yeards though all other parts of Ecclesiasticall and Episcopall jurisdiction as keeping of Courts Visitations Probale of Wills granting of Letters of Administration suspending of Ministers upon Legall and just groundes c. be particularly granted them in those Patents Yet how To be executed only NOMINE VICE ET AVTHORITATE NOSTRIS REGIIS in oâ—â— owne Royall Name Stead and Authority not their owne as the Patents of Scory Couerdale 5. Ed. 6. parsf in the Rolls with many others testify Neither have any Bishops since Henry the 8. this clause of Consecrating Churches Chapples 〈◊〉 Church-yards inserted into heir Patents in these latter dayes from the King under his Great Sâ—ale authorizing them to keep Consistories Visitations prove Wills grant Lâ—â—ters of Administration Suspend Silence or deprive Ministers or inflict any Ecclesiasticall Censures upon any Subjâ—ct Therefore they have not authority at all in point of Law to execute any of those particulars aud what ever they doe in any of them is Coram non judice and but a meere Nullity especially their Consecration of Churches Chapples Church-yeards Altars for which they have neither Patentâ— Statute Article Injunction Canon or Orthodox Writer of our Church Or for those long since antiquated Bacchanalian feasts of Dedication which they would now receive But of this enough for this present in which I have been the more prolix because it is a poiet of Law not hitherto discussed fully by any that I have mett with QVESTION IIII. The 4. Question I shall propound is this What Law or Canon there is to enjoyne Ministers to read the Epistle and Gosple or second service at the High-Altar or Lords Table or to suspend them if they refuse to doe it when there is no Communion The reason of this demaund is five-fold 1. Because in truth there is no Statute Law Injunction or Canon extant prescribing any such thing 2. Because the Rubricke before the Communion ordaines that the TABLE AT THE TIME OF THE COMMVNION shall stand in the body of the Church or Chancle WHERE MORNING AND EVENING PRAYER BE APPOYNTED TO BE SAID and the Preist standing at the NORTH SIDE of the Table shall say the Lords prayer with thi collect following c. And the Rubricke at the end of the Communion ordaines thus Vpon the Holy-dayes if there be no Communion shall be said all that is appointed at the Communion untill the end of the Homily concluding with the generall prayer c. But it sayth not that it shall then be sayd at the Communion Table Whence I observe 1. That theâ— Rubricke ties not the Minister to say second service at the Lords Table but at such times only as there is a Communion 2. That when he reades service at it the Table ought not to stand Altar-wise against the East-wall of the Church but 〈◊〉 be removed and placed in the body or MIDDLE of the Church or Chappel where Morning and Evening Prayer be appointed to be sayd So as the Prâ—â—st ought not to goe up to the Table or high Altar but they ought to be removed and brought downe to him as is cleare by thâ—s Rubricke and more perspicuous by Queen Elizabeths Injunctions and the 82 Canon forecited if you read Whence I argue thus The Minister ought not to read Second service at the Altar but then only when it is removed and brought downe into the body and middle of the Church or Chancel to celebrate the Communion at as the Rubricke Injunction Canon resolve But the Table is not thus
to be removed or placed but at the time of the Communion unlesse they will grant that it ought alwayes to stand in the middest of the Church or Chancel which they profestedly deny witnesse the Rubricke Institution and Canon Therefore they ought not to read Second Service at it but only when there is a Commiâ—â—ion Thirdly because the Rubricke before Te Deum saith that the Epistle and the Gospell shall be read where the two Lessons are with a loudvoayce that the people may heare the Minister that readâ—th them and the Minister Atanding and turning himselfe as â—he may best be heard of ALL such as be present Therefore this is direct that the Second Servicâ— whereof the Epistle and Gospell are a part must be read in the Reading Pâ—w where the Lessons are when there is no Communion Because there he may best be heard of ALL present and that he must not turne his fuce East but West to the people Fourthly because the Table is instituted and placed in Churches not to read divine Service at but to Consecrate and minister the Lords Supper at This is the sole use for which it serves As the Font is ordained only for Baptismâ— the 〈◊〉 for reading and the Chest or pâ—oremans loâ— in every Church for Almes So it for the L Sâ— as is clear by 1 Coâ—â— 10. 16. 21 C. 11. 20. 2â— c. The Common-prayer-booke The Homilies of the worthy receiving of the Sacramntâ— of the right use of the Church of the Râ—pairing and keeping cleare of Churches Queen Elizabeths Inâ—unctions Canons sett ouâ— 1511. p 18. and Can 1603. Can 8â— 82. 83. 84. with all writers old and new I ever mett with all have the Licenses and Injunctions run thus Whereas her Majesty understandeth c. And Tables placed for ministration of the holy Sacrament according to the forme of Law therefore provided Hence Mathew Parkers visitation-Articles An 1560. Art 2. thus Whether have you in your Churches c. A comly and decent Table FOR the HOLY COMMVNION c. The Canons in Convocation Anno 1571. p. 18. thus Church-wardens shall see there be a faire repaired Table which may serve for the Administration of Holy Communion and a câ—eane Cloth to cover it A convenient Pulpit whence the Heavenly doctrine may be taught c. The 28. Can 1603. thus Whereas we have no doubt but that in all Churches within the Realme of England therefore in Cathedrals too which had then no Altars convenient and decent Tables are provided and placed to what end to read Service at No But for the celebration of the holy Communion c. And likewâ—se that a convenient seate be made for the Minister to READ SERVICE IN With a comly decent Pulpit for the preaching of Gods word Can. 83. Since then the use of the Table by these and infinite other testimonies yea by the resolution of all our Preâ—utes â—isitation Articles is only instituted for the celebration of the Lords Supper at it And the 28 Canon with the Rubricke before Tâ— Deum expresly confines the reading of divine service to the Ministers State appointed for that purpose It is cleare that the Minister ought not to read Second Service at the Table but only when there is a Communion That the reading of Service at it on other times is a meere abuse and perversion of that end for which it was instituted And Bishoppes may with as much reason and Law enjoyne them to reade Second Service at the Font in the Pulpit or at the Poore mans box as at it Fifthly Because the Queenes Injunctions the 82 Canon and Arch bishop Laudes very first Article for his Metropoliticall visitation expresly prescribe That when ever the Minister shall reade Service at the Table it shall be placed in so good sort within the Church or Chancle as thereby the Minister shall be the more coveniently heard of the Communicants in his prayer and administration and the Communicants also more conveniently and in more number may communicate with the said Minister Which words compared with the Rubricke before Te Deum are a direct resolution that the Minister ought not to reade any prayers at the Table but when there is a Communion Which being most cleare No Bishoppes may or ought to enjoyne Ministers to reade Second Service at the Table or Altar when there is no Communion neither can they suspend any for not doing it And if any Bishop persuade or enforce Ministers to reade Service thus both the Bishop and they as D. Wreâ— Bâ—shop of Norwich with many of his Clergie have done incurre the penalties of the Act of 1 Eliz. c. 2. and may be indited fined and imprisoned for it by this Law It being a saying of divinâ— sâ—rvice in another manner and forme and an using of other rights and Ceremonies then are prescribed in the Booke of Common-prayer Which together with the Queens Injuctions and Canons condemnes this Innovation which was never used or urged in Parish Churches till now Neither is there any president for it in Antiquity but only in Popish Churches of late yeares All that can be alledged for it is that which Shelford and the Colier produce for Altars and bowing to them The practise of our Cathedrall and Collegiate Churches being most Popish corrupt and most opposite to our Lawes and Canons of all other in their i Crucifixes Images Tapors Altars Altar-adorations Vestments Chaunting lascivious Musicke Gesticulations with a World of other Romish Antichristian Reliques and Ceremonies All which are condemned by the Homilies against the Perill of Idolatrie of the time and place of Prayer The Common Prayer-Booke 3. 4. E. 6. c. 10. 1. Eliz. c. 2. 3. Iac. c. 5. and all our writers till of late being fitter our detestation then Imitation To which I answer 1. That we must live by precepts not Examples Our Cathedrals in this and sundrie other particulars are contrary to our Lawes and Canons in point of practise therefore to be detested corrected and reformed by our Lawes and made like to other Churches Not our Laws Canons and Churches to be squared by them the worst of any 2. The Rubricke of the Common Prayer-Booke in the end of the Communion prescribes in direct termes That in Cathedrall and Collegiate Churches where be many Pâ—eists and Deacons they shall ALL receive the Communion with the Minister EVERY SVN-DAY AT THE LEAST except they have a reasonable cause to thâ— contrary By which it is cleare that there ought to be a Communion celebrated every Sunday in every Cathedrall Collegiate Church and that every Preist and Deacon of the Church ought then to receive it with the Minister unlesse he hath a reasonable cause to the contrary And who can this Minister be but the Bishop Ergo Bishops are but Ministers and ought to receive the Sacrament every Sunday in their Cathedrals Ergo to be alwayes Resident at their Seas and no dancing attendance on the Court. The
as in the places fore-cited so in his Defence against Gâ—egory Martin writes thus The Table anciently stood as men might stand ROUND ABOUT IT AND NOT AGAINST A WALL AS YOUR POPISH ALTARS stand which is easy to prove and hath often times been proved and it seemes sayth he to Martin of the Papists you confesse as much VVhich words of his are both cited and approved of by Bishop Morton who concurs both in words and judgement with him in his two late Editions of his Institution of the Sacrament This Hospinian proves by sundry authorities and by that of the Counsell of Constantinople 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Survis Crab Binius and others render CIRCVMCIRCA ALTARE round about the Altar as the word doth properly signify even in Sacred Scripture other authours as Bishop Iewel Bishop Morton both resolve I shall therefore close up this Quaere with the words of the Iesuite Vasquez more moderate then many of our Novellers Nihilominus certum est c. Although there be many Authours to witt of late time which he there cites for the placing of Altars towards the East Yet it is certaine that it is NO SINNE or offence to situate not only lesser Altars but likewise the High Altar and Quires and Chancles too which he there speakes of towards other climates or parts of the world For this tradition how-ever some urge it as necessary and a binding Law non est de earum numero quae sub praecepto nobis volita fuerunt It is not of the number of those traditions which have been left unto us under any precept VVhich he proves out of the forecited words of Walafridus Strabâ— adding out of Nicephorus that men have diveâ—sly ordered those things in former times Which the example of the Church of Antioch doth manifest out of Socrates wherein the Altar stood westward it being free for Christians in these things vel hanc vel illam consiâ—â—tudinem amplecti to embrace either this or that custome in the siâ—uation of their Altars Lords Tables and Quires Much more theâ— to rayle in or not rayle in their Altars or Lords Tables Altar-wise at the East end of the Quire or to come up to the rayle as Bishop Wreâ— will now inforce all his Diocesse by his new iuvented Articles to receive contrary to the custome of all our churches from Queen Elizabeths time till now yea contrary to the practise in the dayes of Popery and in the primitive time when the Laity came not into the Quire or Chancle to receive but only to offer as is evident by Concilium Toâ— et â—â—um 4. Can. 16. in choro clerus communiceâ— Extra Chorum populus Concil Eluber Can. 76. Sardicense Can. 10. Agathense Can. 2. 5. 50. Cypr. Epist 52. Innocentius 1. Epist. 22. Niciph Eccles Hist â— 12. c. 41. Chamir l. 9. de Coena Domini c. 1. Dr. Featly his grand sacraledge p. 391. with others forequoted And the Rubricke of the Booke of Common-Prayer sett forth in 2. and 3. Ed. 6. which appoints the people to be placed in the Quire the men on the one side the women on the other side and there to receive And likewise King Iames his Proclamation new printed before the Bookes of Common-Prayer admonisheth all men that hereafter they shall not expect nor attempt any further alteration in the common and publicke for me of Gods service from this which is now established c. it being necessâ—ry to use constancy in the holding of the publicke determinations of States for that such is the unquietnâ—sse and unstedfastnesse of some dispositions as Wren other Novellors and the Colier now affecting every yeare new formes of things as if they should be followed in their unconstancy would make all actions of States ridiculous and contemtible VVhereas the stedfast maintaining of things by good advice established is the Weals of all Common Wealthes which J would wish our Novellers to ruminate upon QVESTION VI. The 6. Quaere I shall put to these Innovatours is this VVhat Statute Canon Scripture Anâ—iquity or reasons they have for bowing to or towards Communion-Tables or Altars VVhether their cringing and bowing be a divine adoâ—ation or only a civill worship And how it differs from the Pagans and Papist bowing and practise of adoring Altars Crucifixes Crosses and Images which our Homilies with all our Orthodox writers define to be Idolatrie This Question is Tâ—â—partie and the cheife of all the rest not hitherto debated fully in print by any J shall therefore crave leave to be the more copions in it beginning with the first branch thereof Law Canon Injunction Constitution of our Church enjoyning and prescribing any such bowing or Ceremonie I never yet met with any no not in times of Popery except that of Cardinall Pooles Popish Visitours in Queen Maries dayes in the Vniversity of Cambridge fore mentioned Scripture there is not any direct in point only some texts are strained and miserablie perverted to this purpose As 1 Psal. 5. 7. and Psal. 138. 2. In thy feare will I worship towards thy holy Temple The nearest texts they can ciâ—e for their purpose and yet farre enough from it For what Logician will not deride this argument David would and did worship towards the Temple at Ierusalem Ergo we must bow downe and worship to or towards our Altars or Communion Tables David and the godly Israelites being in their houses or else-where out of the Temple worshipped that is prayed towards it Ergo Christians when they come in or goe out of our Churches must bow downe to the Table or Altar VVhat coherence of vigour is there in this argument What beast had he reason would thus dispute Had they hence inferred Ergo we must alwayes adore bow downe to or worship God towards not in our Churches and Chaples This had been a more probable inference though unsound Because the Iewes worshipped and prayed towards their Temple only which is vanished Not towards their Synagogues of which our Churches is rather patternes and successours then of the Temple which was but one not many and that a type of our Saviour abolished shortly after his death nor of our Churches built long since after another forme and to an other purpose then it But to answer the texts fully 1. First the worship towards the Temple here mentioned was not bare bowing downe of the body only as these Novellers dreame to or towards it or the Altar or Temple but a praying towards it as is evident by Psal. 28. 2. 1 King 8. 20. 30. 33. 35. 38. 42. 44. 48. 2 Chron. 6. 20. 21. 24. 26. 29. 34. 38. Dan 6. 10. Therefore it warrants no bowing to or towards the Altar or Lords Table without prayer 2. Secondly it was a worship towards the Temple only not towards the Altar in the Temple And so makes nothing for bowing towards the Altar or Table For the Church or Chapple
it selfe is neither 3. Thirdly it was only a turning with the face towards the Temple Not any genuflâ—ction or chringing to the Temple But this bowing of our Novellers is not simply towards but likewise to the Altar as Reeue D. Pocklington acknowledge Now bowing to and towards the Altar are in some respects two distinct things Therefore this worshipping towards the Temple no warrant for any bowing to a Table or Altar 4. Fourthly this worshipping towards the Temple is taken two manner of wayes in scripture Improperly and Properly Improperly for a praying in some private place not only out of the Temple but even out of the sight and veiwe of it Thus Daniel even in Babylon prayed 3 times a day towards Ierusalem Dan. 6. 10. And so did all the Iewes where ever they were whether in captivity exile or their owne Country 1. King 8. 30. 35. 38. 44. 48. and other fore-cited texts Properly For worshipping or praying in the Temple as 1. King â— 29. 30. 33. 42. 2. Chron 6. 20 21. 27. 26. 29. Take it in either sence and it will not avayle our Novellers David in his private devotions even out of the sight and veiwe of the Temple did worship or pray towards it Ergo we at our coming in and going out of the Church when we see the Table or High Altar must bow downe to or towards it or David did worship God towards that is in his Temple Ergo they must bow and worship to or towards the Altar or Table for in them or either of them they cannot locally worship God unlesse they will make new formes of Altars and Tables and be mewed up within them by â—ike Popish authority are but frenticke ridiculous consequents Yet the best that can be drawne â—â—om these texts to justify these Ceremonies 5. Fiftly the Iewes had good warrant and ground to worship and pray towards the Temple For 1. First they had a divine premission and authority if not a precept so to doe 2. Secondly a promise from God himselfe to heare graâ—â—â— their prayers made towards the Temple Both which appeares by the forequoted texts of the Kings Chronicles Daniel and the Psalmes Viz 1 King 8. 39. 30. 33. 35. 38. 42. 44. 48. 2 Chron. 6. 20. 21. 24. 26. 29. 34. 38. Dan. l. 10. Psal. 5. 7. Psal. 28. 2. Psal 138. 2. But we have no such permission or precept to bow to or â—â—wards Altars or Tables but a direct precept against it which many read at the Altar Table to witt the second Commaundement Exod. 20. 5. Thou shalt not bow downe to them nor worship them extending as well to Tables as to Images Idols or any other creatures though they presently breake it by bowing unto the Table or Altar Neither have we any promise of reward or of answering our prayers made to us for this cringing to Altars and Tables Their practise thereof warrants not ours 3. Thirdly the Temple was a speciall and lively type of our Saviour Christ himselfe as Divines generally accord and that in many respects too tedious here to mention Wherefore the Iewes were thus to worship towards the Temple to teach them alwayes to looke forwards towards Christ which was to come in the flesh as to their only Sanctuary helpe and refuge in all conditions the only Mediatour and intercessour to whom they must pray the only High Preist Sacrifice Oblation and Altar they must depend on typified by the Temple but never towards Synagogues Now these reasons of their worshipping towards the Temple make nothing for the cringing and congewing to Communion Tables High Altars 4. Fourthly the Temple was the place of Gods speciall presence which God had chosen for himselfe to dwell in and to put his name there where all the Isralites were every yeare by speciall commaund from God to meet to worship him and this among others was one cause of their praying towards it Deut. 12. 11. 12. 1 King 7. 29. 30 c. Psal. 122. 3. 4. But our Innovatours cannot produce one Syllable in Scripture to prove that the High Altar or Communion Table is the speciall place of Gods presence the place which he hath chosen to place his name there and to dwell in Sure the Scriptures informes us that VVHERESOEVER two or three Mat. 18. 20. are gathered together in Christs name there is he in the MIDDEST of them And thereupon commaunds us To pray EVERY where c. 1 Tim. 2. 8. because God is now every where alike present by his Grace Therefore no ground have they to worship or bow either to or towards it as they doe 5. Finally the Jewes whether they were East West North or South from the Temple or it from them worshipped and prayed towards it But our Innovatours as they will have all Altars stand Eastward so they will terminate and direct their worship only towards the East and Altars standing towards the East These texts therefore with Davids worshipping towards the Temple on which they principally relie make nothing at all for the bowing to Altars and Tables which no Fathâ—r or Orthodox expâ—siter that I have seen ever deduced from the Scriptures Yea but if these doe not avayle them Mr. Shelford in his Sermon of Gods house p. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. acquaints us with some others that will as Psal. 99. 5. Exalt yee the Lord our God and worship at his footstoole Eâ—go the first reverence that we must make when wee come into the Church is to bow to the Lords Table which Saint Paul calls the Lords Altar and to worship God towards it Oh sencelesse Divinity and childish Logicke Who ever read of such distâ—acted inferences Had the Psalmist sayd we will worship at the Altar Or had this footestoble here mentioned been the Altar or this worship a meere bowing of the bâ—dy towards the Arke or to it and not a praying or sacrificing only before or at it there had been some shaddow of worshipping that is of praying and sacrificing to God at the Altar but not of bowing to or towards it much lesse to or towards the Lords Table which is neither an Altar noâ— hâ—th any Analogie with the Altar nei her is it so tearmed by Saint Paul as this Dâ—eamer doteth as I have else where proved at large But since we read not in Scripture that David ever worshâ—pped or bowed to or towards the Altar And this sâ—o esâ—â—â—le here by his owne confeâ—â—on was the Arcke but by Davids owne expâ—sition Gods holy mountaine oâ— Hâ—ll Zâ—on Psal 99. 9. And this worshipping not a bowâ—ng but prayer Therefore here is not the least countenance for this Ceremonie Yea but if these texts fall shâ—rt yet others come fully home as Exod. 12. 27. Then the peopl bowed themselves and worshipped Ergo Potlid Therefore we must bow downe and worshâ—p the Alâ—ar or Communion Table Had thâ—se either bâ—wed themselves to or towards the Altar the inference had been somewhat tolerable though
Crucifix in the mid lest two Candlestâ—ckes at the least one placed at the right hand another at the left which shall stand alvvayes on it but especially on all Holy-dayes unlesse the Bishop at some times shall otherwise order VVhich Popish Constitution Bishop Wren with other of our Prelates and Novellers now follow to an haires breadth though I say this Counsell decreed all this and more yet there is not a syllable in it concerning bowing to the Altar Therefore it seemes to be a thiâ—g of no great request even among the Papists who bow only to the Hostia on it Bâ—shâ— Mâ—tons Iâ—stitution of the Sacram p. 463. not to the Altar it selfe or towards it These I suppose are the prime Authorities that can be produced by any for bowing to Altars And all these if duely weighed are nothing at least to sway with any Protestant or syncere Christian. As for bowing to or towards the Lords Table which I have proved not to be an Altar nor yet to be of right so styled but only the Lords Table as even in times of superstation it hath been stâ—â—ed Cent. Magd. Cent. 8. Col. 677. Cent. 9 Col. 243. Nicâ—ph Gâ—eg f. 10. Bishop Mortons Institution of the Sacramâ—nt p. 303. there is not one syllable in all my reading nor I thinke in any man else to be found If any demaund now of me how I prove that the primitive Châ—rch and Coristia is bowed not to Altars Lords Tables and therefore we ought not now to doe it I answer that I can manifest it sundrie wayes 1. Because I finde no such thing either in the Fatâ—eâ—s or Ecclesiasticall Historians where all the Rights and Ceremonies used in the Primitive Church are accurately sett downe and aâ—scribed See Cent Magd. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. cap. 6. de Ceremoniâ—s Ritibus Eccles. so as this of all other had it been a thing of that moment and so much practised as some now fable would not have been passed over in sâ—â—â—nce by them 2. Because the Primitive Church and Chrâ—stians for 260 yeares after Christ or more had no Altars at all among them as I have else where proved Therefore no bowing to Altars And to Tables we never read that any bowed no not in times of Popery when they so farre disdained Lords-Tables that they contemptuously styled them Prophane Tables and Oysterboards Acts Monum Edit ult pars 3. p. 85. 95. 497. 3. Because the Christians in the Primitive Church for many hundred yeares after Christ prohibited all Christianâ— to bow their knees or kneel on any Lordsday and from Easter till Whitson-tide on any weekeday in honour of Christs resurection holding it an offence and sinne so to doe even in the act of prayer and adoration it selfe As Tertullians vvords in his Booke De Corona Militis witnesseth Die Dominica jejunium nefas ducimus vel de geniculis adorare And these subsequent Authorities doe likewise manifest it Iustin Martyr Quaest. 115. Tertullian ad uxorem Hierom Advers Luceforianos de Ecclesiasticis observationibus c. 29. Radulphus Tungrenfis de Canonum observantia Proposit. 23. p. 458. A. Concil Nicaenum Can. 20. Carthag 6. Can. 20. Constantinop 6. Can. 90. Turonense sub Carolo Magno Can. 37. Gratian de Consecratione Dist. 3. Origen Homil. 4. in Num. Cyprian Centur in Orat Domini Centur. Magd. 3. c. 6. col 135. If then the Primitive Christians prayed and worshipped standing and deemâ—d it a sinne to kneel either in prayer or any other act of adoration or worship on those dayes the cheife time of theâ— Christian and publicke assembles especially for receiving the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Ivo Carnotâ—â—ses Decretal Pars 1. c. 25. 34. It is certaine therefore that they used not in their Assemblies to bow their bodies or knees to or towards High Altars or Lords Tablesâ— as certain that they kneeled not at the Sacrament much lesse bovved their heâ—ds or knees at the naming of Iesus as some ignorant shallovv-pated Novellers now pretend and give out without proofe or shaddovv of truthâ— 4. Because the Fathers condemned as Idolatry all bâ—wing to or towards Images or Idols all worshipping 〈◊〉 God in by through or towards them Holding divâ—◠〈◊〉 and adoration a thing peculiar to God alone 〈…〉 immediately to God himselfe without any such 〈…〉 â—elpes of Images or Altars condemning all relative wâ—rship as derogatory to his Majesty See the Homily of the 〈◊〉 of Idolatrie Bishop Ushers answer to the Iesuites Challenge of Images and praying to Saints Therefore this vvorshâ—pping and adoring of God in by through and towards the Altar and Communion-Table is a thing utterly coÌ„demned by them to be detested of all which would have hardned the Gentiles in their Idolatrie for which cause they suffered no Images in their Churches and carefully Tertulliani Apologia wiped of these Cauils of 〈◊〉 Pagans who sâ—â—ndered them with the worshipping of the Rising Sunne the Crosse an Asses head and the like Concluding and protâ—sting that adoration and worship was due to God alone and that immediately 5. Because they reputed Christ only the true Altar the only Altar in â—eaven which they adored all other Altars were Iewish or Pagan reliques abolished by Christs death which had no Authority to warrant them in the Scripture Eusebius Eccles. Hist. l. 10. c. 4. See Bishop Mortons Institution of the SacrameÌ„t Edit 2. p. 415. 418. 461. 462. Therefore unfitt to be bowed to or towards or to be the objects of any relative worship as most now make this their bowing Upon all which grounds I conceive I may safely assirmâ— at least till our Novellers shall be able to prove the contrary that the Primitive Church and Christians never used to bow to Altars or Lords Tables and that there are no Fathers nor Antiquities to justâ—fy this usage In the Discription of the election of Maximilian to be King of the Romanes in the month of Ianuary An. 1486. Rerum Germanicarum Scriptores Tom. 3. p. 22. 23. 24. 28. 29. 30. 32. I 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 Eâ—â—perour in the Cathedrall Church at Fâ—ankfâ—â—d 〈…〉 for him to sit in Ad Altaris 〈…〉 A thâ— South-side of the Altar where the Gosple is usually read higher then the other seates just over against the Altar That the Arch-bishop of Mentz the Duke of Bavarâ—â— the Count Palatine of Rhene Maximilian Arch-Duke of Austria and the Duke of Burgundie sate on his left hand The Arch bishop of Colen the Duke of Saxonie and the Marquâ—sse of Brandenburge on the left hand And the Arch-bishop of Treuier neither on the right hand 〈◊〉 the left but just before the Kings face before the Altar On the same side of the Quire sate divers other Bishoppes On the North-side of the Altar sate many Bishops Earles Dukes and Nobles All which in order went and offered at the Altar After which the King came and received his Crowne at the High Altar Masse being ended the Princes
Electâ—urs went to the Altar to sweare according to the tenour of the golden Bull. At last Maximilian led by the Arch-bishops of Mentz Colen was lifted up upon the Altar and TE DEUM sung played on the Organes CIRCA ALTARE about the Altar at the sides by the exalted King stood the Arch-bishop of Colen and Mentz and before his face stood the Arch-bishop of Treuier the other Princes accompaning and standing about them By which it is evident the High Altar at Frankford at the time of this Coronation stood not Altarwise against the East-wall of the Quire for the King sitting on the South-side of it just over against the Altar and these 5 great Princes sitting in distinct seates at his right hand in state the Altar was at least 5 seates distance from the East-wall and stood so that the Arch-bishops Princes and Nobles when the Emperour was eleuated on it stood round about it and him at the time of this royall solemnity The Heathen Altars likewise stood not against the East-wall of the Quire as appeares by Paulus in Curculione Nurâ— Ara veneris haec est ANTE horum fores Ovid. Motamorph l. 10. Ante fores horum stabat Iovis hospitis Ara. Iulius Caesar Bullingerus de Theatro l. 1. c. 22. p. 256. Latini Comaeâ—i Aram in PROSCENIO CONSTITUUNT in Apolonis honorem c. Vide ibid. So that the placing of Altars against the East-wall is but a late Novelty even among the Papists themselves and so likewise this bowing to or towards the Altar For J finde no mention of it in the exact Discription of this Solemnity Only I read that when Maximilian was crowned at Aken the 31. day of March following they went into the Quire to the High Altar and there heard Masse Then the 3. day of April he offered at the Altar of the Virgin Mary That after some Hymnes sung and collects reade in the Quire Rex prostravit se super tapetum ad gradus Altaris totus in longum The King prosttated himselfe at the steps of the Altar upon a Carpet lying all along upon it And the Arch-Bishop of Colen super â—um sic proctratum legit reads over him thus prostrate Lord save the King with other two Collects Erge we must thus prostrate our selves when we come in 〈…〉 of the Church is no good argument it being a Ceremony 〈◊〉 for the King at his Coronation not to others and a 〈◊〉 not to or towards the Altars but at the steps of it to have an Arch-Bishop read a prayer over him and some speciall 〈◊〉 After which he sate downe in a Royall Seate before the Altar the Arch-Bishop of Mentz sitting on his right hand and Treuier on the left Then these Bishops tooke of the Kings upper garment and leading him between them ante Altare prostratuâ—in modum Crucis he prostrated himselfe in forme of a Crosse before the Altar the Arch-bishop of Colen saying divers prayers there specified over him and the Letanie The Letanie ended the Arch-Bishop of Colen standing before the Altar with his Pastorall staffe in his hand asked of the King six Questions the last whereof was this Wilt thou reverently exhibite due subjection and faith to the most holy Father and Lord in Christ the Pope of Rome to the holy Church of Rome The Popes were anciently sworne to the Emperour and elected by him now they must sweare to the Pope and be chosen by him and his three Arch-Bishop Electours who are still at his devotion See Gratian Distinctio 69. and Dr. Crakenthorpe of the Popes temporall Monarchie cap. 1. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. After which Questions he was ledde by the Arch-Bishops of Mentz and Trevler to the Altar and putting two of the fingers of his right hand on the Altar Sayd I will and J shall faithfully performe all the premises as farre as God by his divine assistance shall enable me and the prayers of faithfull Christians shall assist me So helpe me God and all his Saints Which done these Bishoppes brought him backe before the Altar After that they leade him againe to the Altar qui prostravit se ad terram in longum and then the Arch-bishop of Colen reade a blessing and prayer or two over him Which done they annoynted him in severall places And 〈◊〉 returning before the Altar casting himselfe downe in manner of a Crosse the Arch-Bâ—shop of Colen reade other prayers over him Then they girt him with a sword After that they set the Crowne on his head with severall Collects then leading them againe to the Altar he layd both his hands on the Altar and made this profession among other things in the vulgar tongue Which in truth made him a sâ—ave both to the Pope and Prelates rather then a King I will yeeld due and Canonicall honour to the holy Bishop and Church of Rome and to the other Bishâ—ps and Churches These things likewise which have been given conferred by Kings and Emperours to churches or Ecclesiasticall persons I will inviolably preserve and cause to be preserved by them the Lord Iesus Christ assisting me By which oath and practise the Emperours and Kings of the Romanes are made Vassâ—les to the Pope and Prelates their hands being thereby tyed from the invading any of their exorbitant usurped Priviledges or posâ—â—ssions A heâ—â—sh policy worthy observation Anno Dum. 1518. Jacobi Mantiâ— Cardiâ—alat us Alberti Epise Mogunt Rerum Germ Scriptores Tom. 2. p. 399. VVhen Albertus Arch. Bishop of Mâ—ntz was made a Cardinall he tame up to the High Altar and there kneeling downe before it on both his knees the Popes Legate graced him with a red hats the badge of this hâ—s dignity which he put upon his head He kneeling downe before the Altar till the song of S. Augustins and S. Ambrose was sung So Anâ—o 1066. Hoâ—eden Annql pars prior p. 447. J reade that King Herroâ—d at the celebration of the Masse at Westminster Ante Altare in Oratione prostratus jaceret lay prostrate before the Altar in prayer VVhen our King Richard the first was to be crowned Houeden Annal pars posterâ—or p. 656. 657. 739. he came tothe Altar before the Arch-Bishops Bishops Clergie and People and kneeling downe on his knees before the Altar tooke the usuall Coronation-oath upon the Euangeliâ—ts and 〈…〉 After which 〈◊〉 in the Arch-Bishop an 〈…〉 And taking the Crowne from the Altar put it 〈◊〉 his â—and So at his second Coronation he was ledde into the Cathedrall Church of S. Swithim at VVinchester 〈…〉 even unto the Altar ibi flexis genubus and 〈◊〉 with bended knees devoutly received a benediction from Hubert Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and from thence was ladde to his Throne I reade also that Hugh Abbot of Cluney and Hildeâ—â—â—â—â— whiles he was an Arch-Deacon riding together enâ—â—â—â—â— into a Country-Church Ante Aram injunctis lateribus 〈◊〉 in multam horam protracta Oratione Cast themselves downe before the Altar one by the others side and
the Table Altar not only before the Pulpit the FoÌ„t the Bible the Common-prayer Booke the Paten the Chalice themselves but likewise before the consecrated bread and wine the Sacrament of Christs Supper and the Lord Christ himselfe to whome they give no such congies such solemne adoration reverence genuflexion honour and respect If so then it is almost execrable and abâ—minable Jf not then let them informe me How that which is least bowed to worshipped or adored is most reverenced and respected then that which is not bowed to or honoured with any such genuflection Or how themselves can preach and 〈◊〉 that the name Iesus is more honourable venerable great and glorious then any other of our Saviours â—ames because it is and ought to be most cringed capped and bowed to of all others Till all these Questâ—ons are resolved J shall desire them to suspend this their capitall reason The 2 Reason The second reason for this Ceremonie is Because the Altar and Table are Christs mercy-seate and the memory of the everlasting Sacrifice there made and presented to thâ— Trintry So Mr. Shelford Preist here turned Masse-Preist to present the memory of the everlasting Sacrifice to the holy Trinity opened so to Christ himselfe that made it as if he himselfe had forgotten it or were not able of himselfe to present its memory to his Father without a Masse-Preists helpe which Lawe Giles Widdowes thus seconds The Church is the place of Gods presence The Communion-Table the Chaire of State of the Lord Iesus and his theifest place of presence in our Church Where his PREISTS SACRIFICE THE LORDS SUPPER to reconcile us to God offended with our dayly sinnes Where we sind a resolution of my first Question What is the end of our Novellers writing preaching and contesting for altars and Preists to wit that we may have a Sacrifice againe And what Sacrifice is that The Sacrifice of the Lords Supper faith Widdowes The Sacrament or Sacrifice of the Altar sayth She ford page 2. 19. And what kind of Sacrifice is this A commemorative wâ—â—â—e Shâ—â—ford and the Colier And no other but so Yea quoth Widdowes a propitiatorie sacrifice likewise to reconcile us to God offended with our dayly sinnes And so we have now not only Altars and Preists but the Sacrifice of the Masse it selfe in its ful latitude both as Commemorative and Propitiatory in point of doctrine in Bookes laâ—ely printed by Authority and not yet called in How soone we may have all of them as wee have Altars Preists and a commemorative Sacrifice too in many places in point of practise I leave to others to determine This being made the reason why wee bow to Tables and Altars because they are Christs mercy seat and the memory of the everlasting sacrifice c. is there made and presented to the Trinity This reason I have sufficiently disproved already in proving the Table and Altar to be no mercy Seate and the Lords Supper no Sacrifice Commemorative or Propitiatory I shall therefore first of all desire them to prove what they thus affirâ—e both by Scripture and reason Secondly when they have done this then to make this appeare in like maner by Scripture or solid arguments drawne from it or at least by Fathers and Councels that Christians are bound to bow to Christs mercy seate or to the place where the memory of his Sacrifice is offered The Iewes never doing it to the one nor the Primitive Churches to the other Till this be done I shall demurre upon this Reason The third Reason The 3. ReasoÌ„ is this The Tible Altar are a signe of the place wheâ—e our Saviour was most dishonoured and câ—ucified Therefore wee must bow unto them So Giles Widdowes reasons in a Booke licensed at Oxford by some learned Dâ—ctours I answer First that this is a plaine untruth for they are neither a signe of Ierusalem Golgatha the High-Preist hall or the Crosse. Secondly if a truth yet unable to VVarrant this Ceâ—â—monie For what Scripture reason or Authour is there to just fie that men ought to bow at the signe of the place where our Saviour was dispised dishonoured and crucified Thirdly if this reason be good then these Novellers must bow at and to the signes of Ierusalem which hang up in every Citie or to or towards these Tauerne Posts which these bowers haunt much night and day to make them nod bow and reele the better to their Altars where the signe of Ierusalem hangs For they are properly the signe of the place where our Saviour was most dispised and crucified then the Table or Altar Then likewise they must bow to every Mappe of Ierusalem of the holy Land for they are signes of that place too Much more to Jerusalem and Golgatha themselves to which I wish these Cringers would all travell in pilgrimage that so they might have the sight of the place it selfe to encourage them in this their bowing which is better and more moving then the bare signe of it Fourthly this perchance may make something for the adoring of Crucifixes and the Crosse because though they are no signes of the place where Christ was dispised and crucified yet they are signes of that on which he was dispised and crucified whereas the Table or Altar is a signe of neither So that the Papists if any shall give him thankes for this reason The fourth Reason A fourth reason they produce in print is this Let us learne of our Mother Câ—urches for there our reverend Fathers the Prelates and others make there reverence to God on this wise both at their entry and returne VVherefore to follow their good and holy patterne we also are to doe the like both at our first coming in to Gods house and at our going out so Shelford in his Sermon of Gods house p. 20. and the Coale too p. 1. 2. 27. 64. And if I may judge this is the cheife if not the sole reason why most men use this Ceremony The Arch-Bishops both doe practise it for reasons best knowne to themselves and the Prebends Deanes and Cathedrall men with other Ministers and Câ—rates in Citty Court and Country to imitate and please the Bishoppes whose precepts and examples all are to obey and follow without any examination or demurre as these writers to witt the Colier in his Câ—ale pag. 2. Reeves in his Exposition of the Catechisme in the Common-prayer-Bâ—oke Dogmatize else wee shall soone finde a speedy dissolution both of church and State To this Reason then I answer First that Gods written Law not our Prelates examples no further thâ—â— warranted by Gods word Cor. 11. 1. is the only rule both of Minsters and peoples obedience in matters of faith Gal. 6. 16. Psal. 119. 9. 2 Pet. 1. 19. And it together with the the Lawes of the Realme and Canons confirmed by Acts of Parliament of which fort there are none now extant the only rule for them to follow in matters of
and reverend Prelate Dr. Thomas Morton Bishop of Durham in his Institution of the Sacrament Edit 2. London 1635. l. 6. c. 5. Sect. 15. p. 463. where I reade thus The like difference may be discerned between your maner of reverence in bowing towards the Altar for Adoration of the Eucharist only ours in bowing as well when there is no Eucharist on the Table as when there is which is not to the Table of the Lord but to the Lord of the Table to testify the Communion of all the faithfull Communicants there at even as the people of God did in adoring before the Arke his footstoole Ps. 99. 5. and 1. Chor. 28. 2. As Daniels bowing at prayer in Câ—aldâ—a looking towards the temple at Ierusalem where the Temple of Gods worship was Dan. 6. 10. And as Dauid would be knowne to have done Ps. 5. 7. I will worship toward the holy Temple Which words againe are repeated for failing Lib. 7. cap. 9. Sect 2. Pag 551. I ANSWER That I can hardly beleive that this addition to the second is Bishop Mortons owne but a tricke of Legerdemaine thrust in by some other without his privity with purpose to blemish this incomparable peece of his and draw a scandall upon him My Reasons are three First because his judgment practise formerly to my knowledge haue been otherwise in this particular and likewise in the point of bowing at the naming of Iesus And not aboue three monthes before this second Edition published â—e writ a letter to Dr. Daniel Featly wherein he declared his iudgment both against Altars and placing of Lords Tables Altar-wise and this Ceremony of bowing to or towards them Therefore I cannot belive his judgement and practice so soone altered unlesse there be such infection in Bishops Rotchets as to make them all turne-coates as it hath made most of them Secondly because the phrase and style are different from his savouring rather of some Disciple of Sheldfords or of Bishop Andrewes streine then his as the invention not to the Table but to the Lord of the Table c. evidenceth Thirdly because it is a contradiction to what himselfe professedly maintaines in other places against the Papists and in the words immediately foregoing as appeares by these two particulars First the Bishop in the words immediatly preceding this addition writes thus That the Table of the Lord anciently stood IN THE MIDST OF THE CHANCLE so that they might COMPASSE IT ROUND This he proves in the margeâ—t by Eusebius Eccles. Hist. l. 10. c. 4. Forecited By Coccius Tom. 2. Tract de Altar Out of Athanasius in the life of Antonie who writes thus Altare Domini multorum multitudine CIRCUMDATUM By Chrysostom l. 6. de Sacerdotio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the Preists are said to staÌ„d in a circle about the Altar By Dionysius Areopogita Ecclesiast Hierarch c. 3. Pontifex quidem in MEDIO ALTARI colâ—ocatur CIR CUNSTANT autem eum Soli cum Sacerdotibus Ministri Selecti By Augustine de verbis Domini Sermo 46. Mensa ipsius est illa in MEDIO constituta Concluding thus These â—estimonies verifie the same assertion of Dr. Fulke against Gregory Morton c. 17. The Table stood so that men might stand ROUND ABOUT IT Then comes in this addition which begins thus All this notwithstanding you are not to thinke that wee doe hereby to oppose the Appellation of Preist Altar or yet the new situaâ—ion thereof in our Church as convenient and for order more decent c. Where the Bishop is made to thwart both himselfe and the Primtive Church in maintaining the placing of Lords-Tables Altar-wise against the East-end of the Church to be for use as convenient and for order more decent then the situation of them in the midst A thing which the Bishop who throughout his Booke pleades only for Antiquitie against Popish Noveltie would never doe Since in the very Table of his Bookeâ— â—he hath this Reference It was so anciently placed as to stand round about it And here by the way I cannot but observe the desperate impudency and sottishâ—es of the times wherein we live Bishop Iewell and Dr. Fulke from the forecited Authorities in Queen Elizabeth dayes prâ—ved and affirmed that Communion-Tables in the primitive Church stood in the Midst of the Quire or Chancle so as-men might stand round about them Bishop Morton here in his learned Booke from the same authorities positive affirmes the like and that in both the authorized Editions of his Booke The first An. 1631. and the second Edition Anno 1635. Yet notwithstanding these learned Prelates judgements in their most judicious eleberate writings so oft and so newly printed with publike approbation Dr. Pocklington in his Sunday no Sabbath and a nameless Colier in his Cole from the Altar two ridiculous idle Pamphlets within one yeare after even by publike license too must be set up to affront these learned Bishops together with the Bishop of Lincolnes Letter to the Vicar of Grantham and all the writers of our Church in this other particulars too that Altars and Lords-Tables stood not in the Midst of the Quire in the primitive Church And that these authorities these graue Bishops cite to prove it are impertinent and no wayes evidence that they contest for Good God what age ever heard of such contradictions and confusions in print at the same time in the same Church by men of the same religion and both by Authority Certainly the Licensers of these Bookes and Prelates that give way to them deserve to be made examples for it to posterity for shaming both our Church our Religion and making us laughing stockes to all the world by authorizing such contradictions idle Romish Pamphlets But to returne to the point 2ly The Bishop in the immediate foregoing words writes p. 462. That the Greekes and Latines more rarely called the Table of the Lord an Altar then a Table Which they would not have done had Altar caried in in it the true and absolute property of an Altar using therein the same liberty as they used to doe in applying the name Altar to Gods people and to a Christian mans faith and heart And both before and after he shewes l. 6. c. 3. p. 417. 418. 419. c. 5. p. 461. 462. 463. 464. That the Fathers generally call Christ our Altar placing him as our true Altar only in Heaven which he proves by Irenaeus l. 4. c. 34. Nazianzen Orat. 28. Ambrose Com in Hebr. 10. with other Fathers But here in the beginning of this addition he is made to approve both the name the having use and situation of Altars in our Church and of Priests too From which he is so farre That in the beginning of this very Section before the addition he writes in this maner Your Cardinall his objection is this That Preist Altar Sacrifice are Relatives and have mutuall unseperable dependance one of each other So he and that truely
c. But what if wee shall say of this point of Appellations that it was not so from the beginning here unto we claime but your owne common confessions Viz. g That the Apostles did willingly absteine from the words Sacrifice Sacerdos Altar So your Cardinall Durantus your great Advocate for the Roman Masse Whereby they have condemned not only other your Romish disputers who have sought a proofe of your proper Sacrifice in the word Altar used by the Apostle Paule Hebr. 13. But also themselves who from S. Luke Acts. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concluded a proper Sacrifice As if the Apostles had both absteined and not absteined from the words of Preist and Sacrifice And againe your Iesuite Lorinus In Acts. 14. 22. de Saâ—erdote Ab hoc abstinet Novum Testamentum ut magis proprio antiqui legis Sacrificij Idolorum concedo The New Testament saith he absteined from the word Sacerdos as from that which is more proper to the Old Testament So he vvherefore this and the English word Priest hauing a different relation one to a sacrificing Minister which is proper to the Old Testament the other as it is derived from the word Presbyter in the New Testrment which is Senior and hath no relation to a sacrificing function It must follow that your Disputers seeking to urge the signification of a sacrificing office proper to the Old Testament for proof of a sacrificing act proper to the New performe as fond and fruitlesse a labour as the patching of old vestments with new pieces whereby the rent is made worse But the Apostles did indeed forbeare such tearmes in their speeches concerning Christian vvorship whereof these your fore-named Disputers can give you a reason Least that say they the Iewish Priesthood being as yet in force might seeme by using Iewish Termes to innovate Iewish ritâ—s Which is enough to shew that you are persuaded they absteined from the use of these words for some Reasons Thus he and much more against Priests And against Altars likewise he hath sundrie passages p. 415. 416. 417. 419. both which this addition allowing seemes not to be his Here againe I cannot but admire that these tearmes of Priests Altars thus shunned by the Apostles and denyed by our writers together with Altars Sacrifices themselves so notablie refelled by this Bishop both An. 1631. 1â—35 should the selfesame yeares by doting Shelford Widdowes Reeve and this yeare by Dr. Pocklington and the namelesse Colier be publikely maintained point-blanke against the Bishop And that they by publike authority should which the Rhemists and Bryelly expound that of Hebr. 13. 10. of a materiall Altar which this Bishop out of Aquiâ—as the Diuines of Colen Bellaâ—mine himselfe and Estâ—us proves 〈◊〉 be ment of it but only of Christ himselfe or of the Altar of the Grosse p. 416. 417. I feare therefore that this Clause was added by some of those Bishops Chaplains who licensed these New Pamphlets which point-blanke oppugne the Bâ—shops booke Or else by some of these New Writers or their Freinds These Reasons I say enduce me to beleeve that this is not the Bishops passage But that which doth must prevaile with me is this the sottishnes of the difference reason and proofes therein alledged which savours neither of his judgement learning nor acurenes All which I shall now examine 1. First the partie here puts a difference betweene Protestants bowing to the Altar and Table and Papists which sayth he is three fold First in the cause or reason of this bowing Papists bow towards the Altar only to adore the Eucharist which is on it Therefore by his owne confession they bow not to or towards the Altar out of any relation to or occasion dravvne from the Altar Though Cardinall Pooles Visitoâ—s in Cambridge enjoyned the Schollers to bow to the ALTAR as well as to the Hostia in Queen Maries dayes But Protestants bow towards the Table to testify the CommunioÌ„ of all the faitâ— full communicants thereâ—â—t Secondly in the Object â—apists bow to the Eucharist Protestants to the Lord of the Table not to the Table of the Lord. Thirdly in the time Papists bow only when the Eucharist is upon it Protestants when no Eucharist is thereon The second difference makes Papists and Protestants bowing both one For they bow not to the Eucharist or consecrated bread and wine See Bishop Mortons Institution of the Sacrament l. 7. c. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. But as they apprehend and beleeve it to be the very body bloud of Christ yeâ— Christ himselfe both God and man And so to him which these Protestants termes the Lord of the Tablâ— Therefore the object of their bowing at leastwise according to the Papists Doctrine is both one And so in this respect no diversity in their genuflexions The first and lâ—st liversity makes Protestants worse then Papists and that in these respects 〈◊〉 Prot 〈◊〉 make the Table or Altar the partiall if not totall cause of their bowing to or towards it Wiâ—nes the 3. first reasons alledged for this Ceremonie all drawne from the Table and M. Shelfords distinction See his Sermon of the Church p. 79. that it is not terminativum cultus sed MOTIVUM But the Papists have so much piety and religion in them as neither to make it one or other bowing towards it ONLY to adore the Eucharist Secondly the Papists never bow to the Altar or Table but when the Eucharist and Châ—ist himselfe as they beleeve is really present on it At which time both by their Canons and Doctrine they are enjoyned to bow towards it only to adore the Sacrament A cleare euidence that no part of their bowing is either occasioned by â— or done unto the Altar But our Novellers out stripping the Papists how to or towards the Table even then when there is no Eucharist on it When they both know and beleeve that Christ is not there really present neither in his person nor in his ordinances And when â—s neither the Doctrine nor Canons of our Church enjoyne them so to doe A plaine euidence that they bow not only or principally to the Lord of the Table but to the Table and Altar it selfe Therefore their bowing is farre worse more unreasonable absurd then the Papists in these two respects 3ly The Papists bow thus Bishop Morton Ibid. only to adore their breaden God terminating their worship intentionally only in Christ But our Novellers make Christ only a stalking horse in this their adoration bowing not to the Table but to the Lord of the Table And why so What to worship or honour him therebyâ— No such matter But to testify the Communion of all the faithfull Communicants at the Table Such a peece of new divinity as J never read the like except in some Popish Masse bookes to witt Officium beatae Mariae secundum usum sacrum their Ladies Psalter Primer c. which teach their Proselites to pray to God to move
vanitatis culpa nequaquà m cauâ—è compescitur ab iniquitate proâ—â—â—â— menâ— incauta deuoratur I. shall therefore desire all those who deeme these things â—rifles to ruminate on these two Fathers words And diligently to consider whether they tend Then J presume they will change their judgments Much more might be sayd concerning these Questions matters here debated Bnt this J hope will suffice for the present I shall therefore close up all with the words of Dr. Edward Chulouer in his Sermon entitled Pauls Peregrinations delivered at Pauls Crosse Anno 1617. London 1623. p. 316. to 329. Let us now travell from Athens into England from the world under the Law to the world under the Gospel and consider what it is wherein we are to imitate these Gentiles Concerning their Altars and what it is vvherein we must leave and forsake them Altars as they are properly so taken for those on which the typicall or supposed reall Sacrifices were offred are novv ceased and taken away Our Saviour vvhen he vvas lifted up upon the Crosse bad Altars to be beaten dovvne When he rent the veile of the Temple the Earth-quake shooke their foundation VVhen he died their parts were acted and vvent out The Papists that they may scrue the Pope farther into the mistery of iniquity vvill have him maintaine one Lesson vvhich themselves confesse to be a note of Antichrist and that is that Ievvish Ceremonies are not yet ceased at the least in matters of Sacrifices and Altars But perhaps they had rather be beholden to the Gentiles for them For if vve vvould beleive Cardinall Baronius vve may see their lustrall vvater and sprinkling of Scpulchres in Iuvenall sixth Satyre Lights in Scpulchres in Suetonius Octavius Lamps lighted on Saturday in Geuecas 96. Epist. Distribution of Tapers amongst the people in Macrobius his Saturnals But more lively may vve see it in their Altars 1. First in multiplying the number of them in every Church God allowes but two Altars to the Temple and Bruschius reckons 51. in one Church in Vlmes taking their patterne belike from Venus Temple of which the Poet Ubi Templum illi centumque Sabeo thure calent arae But God teacheth no such Arithmeticke as to multiply Altars because Ephraim saith he hath made many Altars to sinne Hos. 8. 2. Secondly they imitate the Gentiles in dedicating their Altars to such as it is unknowne or at the least uncertaine if ever any such were in the world as to S. George S. Catharine and S. Christopher doing no otherwise then did the Romans who consecrated Altars Dijs incertis to their uncertaiue Gods or these Athenians who built them Deo ignoto to their unknowne God But we need not much seeke to know whom they follow in these devotions vvhen as it is a maine Argument urged by Bellarmine that Altars and Sacrifices were used by the Gentiles therefore they must still be retained by Christians I know not vvhat antiquity they pretend nor vvhat they can finde in the Primitive Church to prove the lawfulnes of them we denie not but that the Fathers might tearme the Table of the Lords supper an Altar And that first in respect of the similitude it hath to the Altar of the Ould Testament for that on it are placed the Sacraments of Christs body which before was figuratively offered up by the Priest upon the Altar Secondly because on it vvere laid the Oblations and Offerings which vvell disposed people vvere vvont to bestovv upon the poore this vve vvill grant them But that there vvere any such Altars in use in the Primitive Church as they pretend vve absolutely deny VVe have an High Priest saith the Authour to the Hebrevves vvho needeth not daily as those Priests to offer Sacrifice nor that he should offer himselfe as often as the High Priest entreth into the Holy place every yeare vvith the blood of others for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the vvorld but novv once in the end of the vvorld hath he appeared to put avvay sinne by that Sacrifice himselfe Chap. 9. v. 25. 28. VVell then Altars of Stone and Metals are nov banished the Christian vvorld by the decree of our Lord Christ Iesus and herein vve must observe that Precept of our Saviour to his Disciples Goe not into the vvay of the Gentiles in these things imitate them not But vvhat doe vve therefore altogether shunne Altars Jmages Temples Jt vvas an old imputation indeed of Celsus others against Christians in the Primitive Church as it is novv of the Romans against us that vve abandon these Ceremonies relinquish them to which my answer at this time shal be no other then what Origen gave Celsus Celsus affirmes saith he that we shune Altars and Images because he takes it to be the beleife of that invisible inexplicable Communion we maintaine When in the meane time he perceives not that to us the mindes of the just are for Altars Temples From which doubtles are sent forth these most sweet odours of Incense vowes I meane and Prayers from a pure Conscience We are not therefore ambitious in mouing Altars or framing Images which heretofore have been the Tabernacles of Devils and Câ—ges of uncleme Spirits But rather embrace such living Altars as one whom we see to burne the true fire of zeale kindled not by vestall Virgins but by the Spirit of God Let any man addes that Father make an inquiry into those Altars which we expound and compare them with those which Celsus I will say which the Pope would bring in or the Images which are fixt in the mind of them which worship God with Phydias's or Policletus's or whom he ever men list to select of cunning Artisicers and he shall plainly see that these inanimate and sencelesse Colosses shall decay and corrupt with time whereas these living Sanctuaries shall be immortall and continue for ever Shall we feare Beloved least Altars Images be taken away or Churches loose somewhat of their Grace and Government I must tell you with S. Ambrose that neither our Prayers nor Sacrifices stand in need of such trimming the best adorning of Sacraments is not Tissues Silke or embroidered Canopies or spangled Crucifixes or painted Poppets or any the like faceings Popery sets forth her Altars more like Pageants then places which favour of Christs simplicity but the redeeming of Captions c. But now what should we admire those Altars whose covering our Saviour Christ pronounced to be but untighteous MaÌ„mon or those CeÌ„sers whose metal S. Peter was not ashamed to confesse that he had none 〈◊〉 Crie not therefore Templum Domini c. The Temple of the Lord c. as did sometimes the Iewes Ier. 7. Hee is the Temple of the Lord in whom true faith dwelleth who is clothed with Iustice as with the vaile of the Tabernacle in whom not Temperance alone or Abstinence sing their parts but in whom the whole set of
to commaund a particular person who may owe himselfe to a Church-Governour as Philemon did to Paul Another thing to commaund yea to give a standing commaund and binding Law to a whole Church to whom he professeth himselfe a Servant or Minister as 2. Cor. 4. 5. over whom he hath no authority but Stewardly or Economically to witt when he speakes in his Lords or Masters name not in his owne As the Steward in a family hath not power over his Masters Spouse but when he speakes or shewes his Masters commaund or directions not his owne But of such things as are only Indifferent Decent I doe not find in Scripture that ever Church-Governours did lawfully advise perswade them Much lesse charge and commaund them And that this place in hand 1. Cor. 14. 40. doth not give them any such power though it be much urged to this end may appeare from these reasons First the place speaketh not of Indifferent Decent things but of Necessary-Decent things the neglect whereof was undecent and disorderly by the light of Nature Scripture and Custome As for Men to weare long-haire women to be bare-headed and for women to speake in the Congregation as also for men to speake many of them at once Secondly the words of this place run not thus Let all decent things be done Or let all things judged or declared by the Church-Governours to be decent be done but thus Let all things to witt all Ecclesiasticall matters As all the Ordinances of God that are done in the Church all the duties of Gods worship Whether Praying Prophesying Psalmes or Sacraments or the like be done decently orderly in orderly and decent maÌ„ner But whether in that decent maner which Church-Governours doe appoint or in some other that the Apostle limitteth not but only requireth that all be done dâ—cently which if it be done his rule here prescribed is observed and followed 3. Thirdly the same may appeare out of this place by this argument If this place of the Apostle did give power and authority to Church-Governours to commaund indifferent decent things then he that should transgresse the commaundement of the Church therein should also transgresse the commaundement of the Apostle As looke what Order or Acts of Iustice any civill Governour doth by vertue of the Commission of the King He that violateth such Acts or trangresseth such Orders transgresseth also against the Commaundement and Commission of the King But it appeareth to be otherwise in this case See D. Barnes That mens Constitutions binde not the Conscience p. 297. to 300. as for instance If the Church-Governour coÌ„mand a Minister to preach alwayes in a Gowne it being indifferent decent so to doe he that shall now and then preach in a cloake transgresseth the commaund of the Church But not of the Apostle For he that preacheth in a cloake preacheth also decently or else whereto serveth Tertullians whole Booke de Pallio Now if so be it be done decently then it is all that the rule of the Apostle requireth in this point But because this point is of great consequence both for Church-Governours and others to be truely informed in give me leave to cleare the same from some other arguments To witt that it is not in the power of Church-Governours to commaund indifferent decent things in the worship of God by Order of Law Prelates and Cleargy-men may be right well assured that God never gave unto them authority to make and establish so many Ceremonies and Traditions which be contrary to the liberty of the Gosple and are blockes in Christen mens wayes that they can neither know nor observe the same his Gosple in liberty of conscience nor so attaine a ready way to Heaven Iohn Paruâ—y his Articles Fox Acts Monuments p. 50â— First then that which exceedes the bounds of Apostolicall authority and straightneth the bounds of Christian Liberty that is not in the power of any Church-Governour to commaund But to commaund indifferent decent things by order of Law exceedeth the bounds of Apostolicall authority and straightneth the bounds of Christian Liberty Ergo c. The former of these to witt that to commaund indifferent decent things exceedeth the bounds of Apostolicall authority appeareth from the Commission graunted to the Apostles which was the largest Commission that ever Christ gave to any Church-Governours Math. 28. 20. Where our Saviour giveth them Commission to teach all Nations to observe all things whatsoever Christ had commaunded them Now all things whatsoever he hath commaunded them are Necessary not indifferent for the people to observe If therefore the Apostles over above the Commaundements of Christ which are necessary should teach the people to observe indifferent things also which Christ hath not commaunded they shall exceed the bounds of their Commission 1. Cor. 14. 37. 1. Cor. 7. 6. 10. OBJECTION It will be in vaine to object that our Saviour here speaketh only of matters of Doctrine and Faith not of Government and Order unlesse it could be proved that our Saviour else-where did enlarge this Commission and gave them more illimited power in matters of Government and Order or Indifferency Which for ought I can sâ—e no man goes about to doe unlesse it be from this place of the Cori which hath been already cleared as I hope from any such meaning As for the second or latter part of the Assumption that to commaund IndiffereÌ„t Decent things straightneth the bound of Christian Liberty is of itselfe evident For whereas for Example a single man or woman are at Liberty to marry where they will 1. Cor. 7. 39. If the Apostle had bound them from marriage by any commaund of his though they had received that Guift of Continencie yet he had then straightned and deprived them of their Liberty in that particular 1. Tim. 4. 3. 4. Col. 2. 20. 21. OBJECTION It is wont to be excepted against them that Christian Liberty stands not in the freedome of outward Actions but in the freedome of Conscience As long therefore as there is no Doctrinall necessity put upon the Conscience to limit the lawfulnes of the use of outward things Christian Liberty is preserved though the use and practise of outward things be limitted ANSWER Whereto I answer The Apostle in this case leaveth the people of God at Liberty not only in point of Conscience for lawfulnes to marry But even in outward Actions and practise Let him doe saith he what he will he sinneth not let him be marryed Vers. 36. As who should say the Conscience being free from sinne in it J will put no tye on the outward practise to restraine it 2. Argument The second Reason may be this They who are not to judge or censure another in differences about circumstantiall things or matters of Indifferency they surely make a binding Law that all men shal be of one mind or of one practise in such things But the former is true from the rule
m Hierom de scripto Eccl. with others in the lives of Cyprian Tertul. prâ—fixed to their workes n Cookes Censura p. 13. o Eusebius Eccl. Hist. l. 7. c. 8. p De praes adv haer p 182 189. Ad uxoreÌ„ l. 2 128 129 130 De Coronr Militis p. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—ent q Diaelogus cum Tryphone and Apol. 2. r Sterâ—at l. 1. 4. Cent. Mag. 2. c. 6. De Retibus 〈◊〉 CoenaÌ„ DominicaÌ„ s Page 43. 44. 45. 46 t Apol. adv â—entes u Replie to Harding Artic. 3. divis 26. p. 144. x The 3. part of the Homily against the Paril of Idolatrie p 66. 67. y â—e Calep. Holioke in their Dictionar Ara. z Epist. l. 1. Epist. 7. in Erasin Epist. 74. a Epist. l. 1 Epist. 9. Epist. 69. in Pamel b Epist. l. 1 Epist. 12. Apud PameliuÌ„ 70. p. 101. c Bastards of the false Fathers p. 11. to 18 d Censura p. 75. to 82 e Se Cookes Censura D. Lâ—nes D. Favar f Eccles. Hist. l. 7. c. 8. g Epist. l. 2 Epist. 3. in Pamelius Epist. 63. h Concil Carthag 1 Can. 6. 9. 3. Can. 15. 4. Can. 18. 20. * Tui opinionem nominis enormiter gravat quod causas sanguinis agis quod abjecta Ecclesiarum solicitudine negocijs seculariâ—us te tottâ—m occupas involuis Verum tamen tui professio ordiniâ— nec degeneres saeculi curas nec saevitiam gladij materialis admittis Apost dicit Secularia negotia si habueriâ—is eos qui contemptibiliores sunt inter vos ad judicanduÌ„ eligite Non decet ordinem profeffionis tuae in alea tanti diutius ludere salute anime spietate adeâ— damnabiliter secularibus involuere montemque Seir Bariginoso spiritu circumine Petr. Blesens Epist. 42. ad Epist. Camoracenj i Fox Acts monum p. 1211. k Se Hâ—d Cant. Oâ—or l 3 s. 271 l See Novells Reproof of Dormans Proofe f. 15. 16. 17. m In his Preface before his Replie to B. lewell n Notes on 1. Cor. 11. sect 18. on Hebr. 13. sect 6. o See Reynolds Conf with Hare c. 8. div 4. p Garner deEuchar others forecited q De Eucharistia or the Sacrament of the Altar r Peter Martyr Defensia adâ— Gard. deEuchar 2. William Wraghton 3 William Salisbury * vel propter artâ— latriam vitandam tutius erit ut sedengenu flectens mensae Dominicae populus accumbere assuescant They therfore used 〈◊〉 sit at the Sacrament in King Edwards dayes to avoyd the peril of adoration 4. Iohn Bale Bishop of Osyris 5. B. Pilkington 6. Thomas Becon * Heb. 13. Altars not tollerable among Christians Christ his Apostles and the primative Church used tables at the ministration of the holy CoÌ„munion O cruell butchers O murtherers Masses why they serve The Lords Table cast out of the Temples Dan. 11. 1. Cor. 10. Ceremonies The apparell of the Massemongers The gesture which the Masse mongers use in their Masse The Masse mongers Trinkets * Lib 2. Offic. c. 18. Altares Note Exod. 2â— When Altars came first into the Church A Table more meet for the ministration of the Lords Supper then an Altar * Heb. 10â— Of gestures to be used at the Lords Table Of kneeling Of standing Of sitting * Note Of vestures at the ministration of the Lords Supper Surplesse * See D. Rainolds conference with Hart c. 8. divis 4. 5. Haddon contra Osorium lib. 3. fol. 285. M. Nowels Reproofe of Dormans Proofe fol. 66. And Thomas Becons Comparison between the Lords Supper the Popes Masse Bishop Iewel Defence of the Apologie part 3. c. 5. divis 1. * See Fox Acts and Monum p. 1873. 1356. 1366. 1384. 1405. 1604. 1781. 1834. 1837. accordingly 7. Deane Nowell * Chrysost. Hom. â—18 in 2. Cor. August Tract 26. in Ioan. multi multis locis Hierom ad Demetriadem ad Nepotian 8. Walter Haddon 9. D. Fulke * Note 10. M. Calfehill 11. Bishop Babington 12. M. Cartwrigt * Optatus l 6. Aug. Ep. 50. ad Bonif. vid. Euse. l. 10. ex orat panegyr in Eucariâ—s vid. Aug. de civ Dei l. 10. c. 5. Item de consecr distinct 2. * Origen cont Cels. l. 4. Volat. vid. volat venerer contr Floretum l. 4. Beat Rhen Ep. praefix Leiturg Chrysost. Heb. 13. 4. Tit. 2. 5. 1. The. 4. 4 13. D. Willet Object 1. Answer 1. * See William Salisbury his Batery of the Popes Batter * Fox Acts monum p. 1806. * Confutation of the Rhem. Testament Notes on Apoc. 6. sect 1. 1 William Salisbury * Ostrich is a beast that swalloweth gaddes of stele digesteth them * The Bee gathereth hony on the same flour that the Spider gathereth poyson 2 Richard Woodman ast; Fox Acts monum p. 1806. The B. of Chichester rightly answered of his man according to his question Sacram of the Altar The Altar how it is to be taken where it is Christ the true and only Altar 3 D. Fulke 5 D. Rainold a In Orat. de Sorore Gorgonia b Demonst. quod Christus sit Deus c Histor. Eccles. l. 1. c. 20 25. d Epist. 86. de Civitat Dei 18. c. 27. l. 22 c. 10. Confesse l. 11. 13. Contra Faustum Manich. l. 20. c. 21. e Theph in Matth. 23. f Aretheas in collect exposit in Apoc. c. 8. Rupert Com. 8. in Apocalyp 1. 5. Allen in his Treatise of the Sacrifice of the Masse g The Rhemists in their Annotat on the New Testament h Greg. Nazianz. Orat. in laud. Basilii Chrysoâ—t demonstr quod Christus sit Deus Homil. in Matth. 16. 8. 3. in priâ—r Epist. ad Corinth 24. 27â— ad populum Antioch 60. 61. Sermon de Euchar. de B. Philogenio Sâ—crat Hist. Eccles. l. 1. c. 20. 25. August Epist. 59. ad Paulin. Tract in Iohan 26. de verbis Domini Serm. 46. Theophylact in prior Epist. ad Corint c. 11. i Prudent Hym. de S. Laur. CoÌ„c Carth. 2. c. 2. Isidor etymol. ar l. 7. â— 12. Ambr. de Offic. l. 2. c. 50. Lev. Epi. 79. aâ— Dioscer k The Booke of Com. prayâ— in the Commun l Iustin. Martyr in Apolog. 2. Irenae l. 4. c. 34. l. 5. c. 4. Cyprian Epist. 63. ad Coecilium Ambros. de Sacram. l. 4. 5. Lev. Serm. 4. de quadrag m Concil Constant. Sess. 13. Trident. Sess. 21. c. 1. can 2. n Durandus in rational divinor officiis l. 4. c. 53. †Panis benedictus sanctae com munionis vicarius 6 D. Willeâ— 7 David Dickson 8. King Iames. Object 2. o Treatise of Gods house p. 2. Answer 1. p See B. Iewels Replie to Harding Art 1. div 5. p. 5. q In their forecited places m See this Rhemists Notes on Hebr. 13. Sect. 6. others of the Masse n Fox Acts monnm p. 1211. Service Sacraments * Page 61. 62. * By like D. Heylyn wâ—o playes tâ—e ignoraÌ„t Lawyer to
order 1. Cor. 11. 33. 34. c. 13. 40. never sendinge us to take a patterne from the manner of his second Comminge which is left Arbitrarie to himselfe and his Fathers pleasure Acts 1. 7. Math. 24. 36. not prescribed as a pattorne of imi tation unto us But the standinge of the Table in the midst in Christ the primitive and all reformed Churches Iudgments is most decent and Convenient therefore it is to bee observed and retained of us The second reason alleaged by our Novellers for their newe dislocation of Communion Tables is this The Communion Tables ought to bee placed at the East end of the Chancell because it is Christs mercy seate his claire of Estate and the speciall place of his presence here on Earth on which hee sitts and resides and the East end of the Chauncell or Quire is the upper the best part the prime place of honour in the Church and therefore no seates ought to bee there suffered and the Altar the Communion Table must bee there seated that soe none maye take the wall of Christ 〈◊〉 sitt above him and God Almighty This reason hath been often alleaged by our Archbishops Bishops and others in the high-Commission and urged by Giles Widdowes M. Shelford Reeve other fantasticke Scriblers in their ridiculous frantâ—cke novel Pamphlets which no man maye have libertie freely to write or preach against though never so erroneous superstitious Popish and absurd To this I answeare First that the mercy-seate was Jewish tipicall abolished by Christs death of whom it was a type Rom. 3. 25. 1. John 2. 2. Col. 2. 16. 17. Heb. 9. 1. to 12. and all Commentators on these textt on Exod. c. 25. and 26. and 30. and 31. and 37. and 39. and 40. Godwins Roman Antiquities l. 2. c. 1. p. 78. 79. Therefore is not it cannot bee a mercy seate 2. The mercie seate was nothinge else but the Coveringe of the Arke so called because it Covered and hidd the Lawe it was made of pure gold two cubites and an halfe broade with two Cherubims of gold of beaten worke in the two ends of the mercie seate and it was put above upon the Arke Exod. 25. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. c. 26. 34. c. 30. 6. c. 31. 7. c. 37. 6. to 10. c. 40. 20. Lev. 16. 13. 14. 15. Num. 7. 8. 9. Our Communion Tables are not such for matter forme workemanshipp scituation neither is there any Arke upon the topp whereof they maye bee satt if you will make the Quire resemble the Arke you must then place them upon the roofe and leds of our Quires therefore they are not mercy seates 3. God did only dispence his word and Oracles and all things which hee gave Commaundement to the Children of Israell from betweene the two Cherubims and the mercie seate Exod. 25. 22. and the fore-quoted texts The pulpiâ— therefore in this regard of it elevation above the pewes people shoulde rather bee Christs mercie seate then the Communion Table where Christ only distributed his bodie and blood unto us not his word and precepts 4. The Arke and mercy seate stood in the Sanctum Sanctorum at the West end of the Temple not the East Heb. 9. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. whether none but the high Preist might enter and that but once a yeare not without blood If therefore the Communion Table bee a mercy seate it must stand in the West end of our Churches upon the topp of the Arke in a Sanctrum Sanctorum as it did neither ought any Bishop or Preist to come neere it but the high Preist only to with the Archbishop of Canterbury Private of all Engiand and that once a yeare and noe more with blooddy sacrifices 5. There was but one mercy seate standinge only in the Temple not in the Synagogues over the Arke which was but one If therefore the Lords Table bee a mercie seate there shoulde bee but one in all the worlde This first reason therefore is but a Iewish frenticke dreame 6. The paten which containes the Consecrated breade and the Chalice which hold the hallowed wyne stand upon the Table as the mercy seate did upon the Arke beinge made of silver in most of gold in some places shoulde rather be Christs mercy seate then the Table it selfe yet no men bowe or cring to them or plead for their honour and precedently though more worthy in respect of matter use immediate contayninge of the materiall partes of the Sacrament then the Table 2. I answeare That the Communion Table is not Christs Chaire of Estate as these Novellers dogmatize For heaven only is Christs Throane Earth but his foo stoole Gen. 4. 2. Psal. 103. 11. Psal. 110. 1. Heb. 1. 13. c. 8. 1. c. 10. 12. 13. Rom. 8. 34. Psal. 11. 4. Isay 66. 1. Matth. 5. 34. Acts. 7. 49. And it is the expresse resolution of the Scripture and the Article of our Creede that Christ in his humane nature hath his Throane and mercy seate only at his Fathers owne right hand in heaven where hee sits in Majesty and glorie makinge perpetuall intercession for us and shall there constantly reside untill his second comminge to Iudgment Acts 1. 11. c. 3. 21. Hebr. 9. 28. howe then the Communion Table can bee his chaire of State and cheife place of his presence I cannot conjecture 2. Christ in the Sacrament exhibits himselfe not in his State glorie to us but in the very depth of his passion humiliation the Sacrament beinge instituted not to manifest his exaltation and glorie but to expresse unto us the breakinge of Gods body effusion of his blood on the Crosse to shewe forth his death till his comminge 1. Cor. 11. 24. 25. 26. Math. 26. 28. Luke 22. 19. 20. Howe therefore this place Phil. 2. 7. 8. and Emblem of his greatest debasement can bee colourobly stiled his chaire of State and Mâ—jâ—sty I cannot comprehend 3. Whoe ever heard a Table to eate drinke at tearmeds chare of State either in respect of the meate or guests or howe can it bee so tearmed without grosse absurditie especially when the party there present on it is exposed to us only as spirituall meate and drinke to bee received by us not adored of us 1. Cor. 10. 3. 4. 16. 17. 21. c. 11. 21. to 30. John 6. 48. to 59. 4. If any thinge maye bee there tearmed Christs Chaire of Estate it shoulde bee the Plater Chalice wherein the breade wyne are imediately comprised not the Table whereon they stand which is rather a footstoole to support Christs Chaire then the Chaire wherein hee sits in State the breade wyne not so much as touchinge the Table 5. Why shoulde the Lords Table bee Christs mercy seate or Chaire of State rather then the Font the Pulpit or Church Bible Is not Christ as really spiritually present in the one as the other by his mercy grace spirit and
is not Baptisme the word as necessarie as the Lords supper Math. 28. 19. 20. Mar. 16. 15. 16. yeaâ— more needfull and absolutely necessarieâ— since men maye bee saved without receivinge the Sacrament of the Lords supper but not without Baptisme the word read and preached as many teach 6. To make the Communion Table Christs mercy seate Chaire of Estate and place of his speciall presence if it bee meant of his spirituall presence only is a falsehood since hee is alwayes equallie present in this manner in all his ordinances to the end of the worlde Math. 28. 19. 20. If of his Corporall presence which is only nowe in heaven Acts 3. 21. Hebr. 9. 28. John 14. 2. 3. 28. c. 16. 7. 16. 17. 19. 21. the thinge they intend then it smels of ranke Popoâ—se intimatinge a transubstantiation of the breade wyne into Christs verie bodie bloode a notorious Popish absurditie longe since exploded by our Church drowned in our Martyrs blood whoe oppugned it to the death 3. Admitt that the Communion Table were Christs mercy seate Chaire of Estate which they take as graunted without any Scripture ground or reason which I desire them first to prove before they lay it downe an undoubted principle yet the conclusion will not followe that therefore is must stand at the East end of the Chauncell or Quire Altarwise For first the mercy seate stood in the end of the Tabernacle and Temple upon the topp of the Arke not at the East Therefore the Table should stand so too were it a mercy seate 2. Christs Chaire of Estate ought to bee seated there where himselfe hath promised his speciall presence But that is not in the East end but in the midst of the Church and people Math. 18. 20. as I have formerly proved by sundry Scriptures Therefore it shoulde bee placed in the midst 4. Whereas these men protend that the East end of the Chancell or Quire where they nowe raile in the Table Altarwise is the highest and most worthy place in the Church and that noe seates must there bee suffered for feare any shoulde take the wall or upper hand of Christ and sitt above him or checkmate with him in his owne Temple I answeare First that these are ridiculous Childish fantastique conceites of their owne superstitious braines grounded on no Scripture or solid reason and so not to be credited 2. These reasons make Christ ambitious of place precedency corporally present here an Earth when as he was still is lowly humble Matth. 11. 29. forbiddinge men to sitt downe at any Feast in the uppermost place but in the lowest and pronouncinge an woe against the Pharisies for lovinge the uppermost seates in Synagogues and Feasts Math. 23. 6. Luke 11. 43. therefore were hee nowe on Earth hee woulde not contend for precedency and the upper-most place as these his ambitious-Champions doe for him because they love precedency themselves much lesse will hee doe it nowe he hath taken upp his seate and throne in heaven hath left the Earth altogeather in his bodily presence where these Novellers woulde faine to be still resident in the Church on the Communion Table as the Papists saye he is upon their Altars close prisoner in a Pix 3. It is most false that the East end of the Quire or Chauncell where they nowe place their Altars and Tables is the most honourable and prime place of the Church and Quire For in all Cathedralls that I have seene in his Majesties Chappell 's the Arch-Bishops Bishops Deanes Thrones and seates and the Kings Closetts are at the West end of the Quire or Chancell And the most honorable persons seat is the West not the East end of them the more West any man sits the higher the more East the lower the seates next the West end beinge reputed the highest and honorablest the seates next the East the lowest for the singinge men and Quiresters the meaner sort of people Soe in Parish Churches where there are any seates in the Chancell or Quire the seate at the West end is usually esteemed the worthiest and first seate and the neerer the East end the meaner and lower are they reputed The West end therefore of the Quire and Chancell as these instances and experience undeniable manifest is the cheifest the place where the most honorable persons have their seates chaires of State If therefore the Communion Table or their Altars bee Christs Chaire of State and that hee ought to take precedency and place of all men then it must bee placed in the West end of the Quire in Cathedralls where the Bishops Throne and seate is scituated and removed to the West end of the Chancell where the best man of the Parish sits not thrust downe to the East end of the Quire or Chancell against the wall which is in truth the lowest place by their owne practice and resolution And here we may behold the desperate soâ—tishnes and frenzie of these Popish Innovators whoe under a vaine pretence of givinge Christ the Communion Table the upper hand that none may sitt above them will needs thrust them into the varie lowest place even in their owne practice Iudgements and Common reputation where servants or the meaner sort of people only sit where there are seates or formes in most Churches which yet against their owne Iudgements and knowledge out of I knowe not what factious strange superstitions humour must upon a suddaine be Cried upp for the most honorable place by these learned Rabbies 4. Admit the Communion Table Christs Chaire of Estate and mercy seate and that it ought to be placed in the best and uppermost place of the Church yet it is only such and thus to bee scituated when the Sacrament is administred For howe is it his Chaire of State his mercy seate and cheifest place of residence when there is no Sacramentall breade wyne upon it to represent his spirituall presence to us But when the Sacrament is to be administred the booke of Common prayer the Queenes Injunctions Fathers and forecited Authors informe us that it must bee placed in the body or midst of the Church or Chancell Therefore our Novellers must either deny the East end of the Quire to be the most honorable place or that it was ever so reputed or else confesse the invalidity of this their proposition That the Table ought to stand in the cheife and most honorable place of the Church unlesse they will Condemne the Fathers the primitive yea our owne Church and all our cheife writers of Error in this particular 5. Admit that the East end of the Chancell or Quire bee the most honorable parte of the Church and that the Table for this reason ought there to be rayled in Why are not the Font and Pulpit there placed and rayled in as well as the Table and the Bible and readinge pewe too Are not the Font the Pulpit the Bible as honorable
situation hath been changed without yea against both Law and Canon Therfore the Lords Tables in all other Churches Chapples ought thus to be situated As for the practise in his Mayesteyes Chapples since he came to the Crowne I am utterly ignorant of it But when he was Prince of Wales I once receiued the Sacrament in his Chapple at Sant Iames then the Communion Table at the Time of the Sacrament administration was placed in the middest of the Chapple and white linnen Clothes like Table Clothes were spread upon the deskes of the Seates where in the Communiantâ— sate round about in a decent manner the Ministers delivering them the Sacrament in those seates and this they then certified me had been and was the custome of administring the Sacrament there both in Prince Henries his Majestyts time Whether the Custome be different at Whitehall or other his Majestyes Chapples I know not since I never was at any Sacrament there but of the other I was an eye-witnes and many who have beene ancient servants both to Prince Henry his Majesty can testify this to have been the Custome I cannot therfore thinke that the King Princes Chapples doe jarre or vary in this particular But admit they should yet vivendum est legibus non Exemplis his Majestyes subjects must live according to his Lawes in this particular not according to the patterne of his Chapples exempt as from all Episcopall Iurisdiction as all other Churches Chapples should be as well as they if this argument hold good so from ordinary Rules and Lawes which bind the Subject But to give a more particular answer I say that admit the Antecedent true yet the consequence is infirme We know that Cathedrall Churches have Deanes Prebends Canons Singing-men Choristers Organists Virgerers Copes Sackbuts yea Kits Cornets oft times in them that they sing not read their whole divine Service prayers to I doubt me much whether with any serious contrition compunction since S. James writes thus c. 5. v. 13. If any man be merry let him sing Psalmes if any man be sorry or afflicted let him pray not sing Salomon sayth Prov. 25. 20. As he that taketh away a garment in cold weather as vineger upon niter so is he that singeth songs too much more then with an heavy heart Will it therfore follow Therfore all Papish Churches Chapples ought to have such Officers Instruments chaunting We know that many Cathedralls now I know not by what Law have no Communion Tables in them but High Altars so they terme them elevated on High with many steps and ascents their very exalted situation name being clearly derived from the Idolatrous High places of the Gentiles so oft condemned in Scriptures Num. 33. 52. Deutr. 33. 29. 1. Kings 12. 31. 32. c. 14. 23. 2. Chron. 17. 6. c. 31. 1. c. 34. 3. Jer. 17. 3 Ezech. 6. 3. c. 16. 16. 39. which were nothing but High Altars situated in High places Shall therfore all our parish Churches Chapples have no Communion Tables in them though prescribed by our Statutes Common Prayer-Booke Articles of Religion Homilies Injunctions Canons writers but High-Altars only which all these decree We know that these new erected Cathedrall High Altars have much furniture as Tapers Basons Cushions yea and Crucifixes expresly condemned by our Homilies as unlawfull either to be made or used in Churches standing on them Which M. Andrew Melvin that famous Scottish Poët Divine thus wittily describes in Latine Verse In Aram Anglicanam ejusque apparatum Cur stant clausi Anglis libri duo regia in Ara Lumina coeca duo pollubra sicca duo Num sensum cultumque Dei tenet Anglia clausum Lumine coeca suo flumine sicca suo Romano an Ritu dum regalem instruit Aram Purpuream gemino mact at honore lupam Si Christi haec Mensa est cur Missae est structa paratu Cur versa in tenebras Lux in inane Latex Si sensus cultusque Papae sit clausa Britannis Cur sacra cum castâ Biblia clausa prece Cur quae pulsa prius presto est caliginis umbra Quò calamistra trucis philtraque blanda Lupae Which may be thus Englished upon the Altar Furniture thereof in England Why on Court-Altars two Bookes clasped lie Two lightless Lights two empty Basons drie Does England in Gods worship lock-up Sense Darke in her Beames dry in Streames influence Whilst with Romes Rites shee Royall-Altars Decks Offers shee not Romes Whore in all respects If `t is Christs Board why is it Mass-like trim'd Why has it empty Fonts Lights wholely dim'd If Romes Dumbe-Showes be from the Britans banisht Why are our Bibles Shut our pure Prayers vanisht Why are Romes Foggs brought back expell'd before What meane the Tyres sweet Drafts of that bace Whore Shall it therfore follow because these Cathedrall Altars have such trinkets standing on them ergo every parish Church Chapple ought to have such furniture standing on their Altars Communion Tables to I trow not unlesse there were some Law or Statute for it since the Rubricke of the Common Prayer Booke the 82. Canon Prescribes that at the Communion time the Table should have no other furniture but a white linnen cloth upon it and that at other times during diviue service only it should be covered with a Carpet of filke or other decent stuffe so that all these other Popish Trinkets now standing on it in Cathedrall Churches are both against the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 2. the Booke of Common Prayer the Canons yea and the Queenes Injunctions as the High Altar is This argument therfore now much insisted on is invalid untesse our Cathedrals werè more conformable to our Lawes Canons in those particulars then now they are The 5. Objection is this That the Queenes Injunctions commaund the Communion Tables to stand in the place where the Altar stood Ergo they ought to be placed Altar-wise To this I answer that the words of the Queenes Injunctions published Anno 1559. by the advise of her most honorable Counsaile are these For the Tables in the Church Whereas her Majesty under standeth that in many sundrie parts of the Realme the Altars of the Churches be removed and Tables placed for the administration of the Holy Sacrament ACCORDING TO THE FORME OF THE LAW THERFORE PROVIDED and in some other places the Altars be not yet removed upon opinion conceived of some other Order to be taken by her Majestyes Visitours In the order where of having for uniformity there seemeth no matter of great moment so that the Sacrament be duly reverently Ministred yet for observation of one uniformity THROUGH THE WHOLE REALME and for the better imitation of THE LAW IN THAT BE HALFE it is ordered that no Altar be taken downe but by oversight of the curate of the Church and the Church-wardens or one of them at the leastâ—